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

Michael Schwendt mschwendt at gmail.com
Mon Sep 23 23:56:39 UTC 2013


On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:21:13 +0000, J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson wrote:

> On 09/23/2013 11:07 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > - 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?

Nothing. There are large projects as well as small projects, some with
non-public bug tracking only, but with good reachability via email (or
message boards or IRC).

> > 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 ).

It's not feasible in all cases. It fails already, if a bug reporter
doesn't answer questions (in the worst case whether the problem is
reproducible with the latest development code?). The most a "middle man"
can do in that case is forwarding a bug report upstream without prior
triaging or contributing a patch. That's not very helpful.
Especially not if a problem is not reproducible. There are upstreams
that move on immediately, if the first attempt at reproducing a problem
is not successful or if the backtrace may be just due to side-effects.


More information about the test mailing list