Moving away from reporting to RH bugzilla and adopting pure upstream reporting mantra.

"J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson" johannbg at
Mon Sep 23 23:21:13 UTC 2013

On 09/23/2013 11:07 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jan Wildeboer (jwildebo at said:
>> How will you track blocker bugs?
>> How can we see a global view of all open bugs? Aggregate from X upstream bug report systems? Which not all are Bugzilla?
>> How can we track critical bugs?
> Additional concerns I'd have above this:
> - Not all things we ship have active upstream bug trackers to fall back on

What do you think that tells us about the thing we are shipping?

> - We still need a way to track Fedora-specific integration & packaging
>    concerns, which would likely get closed upstream as 'NOTABUG' for that
>    project

Yes we would.

> - What filing downstream gives the Fedora maintainer is a good mechanism
>    for knowing what's going on in that package in Fedora. Tracking *all*
>    upstream bugs in a bug tracker may not be a good way to do so.

If that bug tracker would have a component field called distribution and 
in was fedora that would not be a problem but neither would it if 
everybody used the same kind of bug tracker or a global mutual bug 
tracker for all distro to use but that could be solved via Fedora tag 
line in the bug report itself with relevant upstream.

> Honestly, I think a good dedicated triage team that works to verify and move
> upstream as appropriate works better. But, you know, requires getting and
> keeping such a team.

Quite frankly that has been proven not to work and quite frankly the 
packager should be the one playing that middle man ( which is not 
working either ).

More information about the test mailing list