Moving away from reporting to RH bugzilla and adopting pure upstream reporting mantra.
jik at kamens.us
Mon Sep 23 23:44:59 UTC 2013
This is as bad of an idea now as it has been every previous time it has
1) Many of the bugs which get filed against Fedora are just that, Fedora
bugs, not bugs in upstream packages. Missing file in a package? Fedora
bug. Package linked against the wrong version? Fedora bug. Bug about
upgrading to a new version of an upstream package? Fedora bug. Bug in
the Fedora installer? Fedora bug.
I can't imagine where you expect these bugs to go if Fedora "move[s]
entirely away from Red Hat bugzilla as well as away from [the] concept
of hosting our own." If that were to occur, then the bugs in
Fedora-specific packages such as the installer would have, literally,
nowhere else to go. And I assure you that upstream package maintainers
will not want Fedora-specific bugs in their bug databases.
2) Most Fedora users are not developers. If they have to jump through
hoops to figure out where to report bugs, then they won't report the
bugs. The "one-stop shop" that Red Hat bugzilla provides as a point of
entry for all bugs that users encounter in Fedora is a huge, huge,
value-add service. Getting rid of it would do catastrophic damage to
Fedora's ability to get feedback about problems from end users who
aren't power users and developers. Is Fedora trying to simply write off
such users as irrelevant?
3) I am not sure what you mean when you make the generalized statement
that the current system of package maintainers triaging bugs, soliciting
additional information from users as needed, and reporting upstream as
needed, "is not working." I admit that there are some package
maintainers who don't do a good enough job of this, but there are also
many package maintainers who do it extremely well; in fact, I'd say that
the majority of bugs I file are dealt with appropriately by their
maintainers. If some package maintainers aren't doing their jobs, then
the solution is to teach them how to do their jobs better and replace
the ones who can't, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater by
getting rid of the entire bug-tracking system because some of the people
participating in it are not doing as good a job as they should.
4) As others have pointed out, there is a huge amount of value in being
able to track how Fedora is doing at handling the bugs /that are
reported by Fedora users./ While it's true that the Fedora bug database
doesn't have every bug in every upstream package in it, there will
/never/ be /any/ bug-tracking system which has that global view, so
that's a red herring. What the Fedora bug database tells us is what bugs
are being encountered and reported specifically by Fedora users, which
is the best possible metric of the quality of the Fedora release. The
fact that upstream bugs that Fedora users don't encounter don't end up
in the Fedora database is a good thing and an argument in favor of
keeping the Fedora database, not a bad thing.
Mint has a bug database. Ubuntu has a bug database. Mageia has a bug
database. Debian has a bug database. Those are the top four Linux
distributions currently in use
Fedora is number five. By all means, if you want Fedora to go even lower
in the rankings, buck the trend the top four all seem comfortable with
and get rid of the bug database.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the test