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

Mateusz Marzantowicz mmarzantowicz at
Tue Sep 24 10:45:00 UTC 2013

On 23.09.2013 23:49, "J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson" wrote:
> Greetings you all
> After bit of irc discussion there is a compelling reason to move
> entirely away from Red Hat bugzilla as well as away from concept of
> hosting our own.
> Now it pretty much boils down to this.
> 1. Generic attitude of many maintainers is that reports either go to the
> correct place ( upstream ) or they get their bugzilla ignored.
> 2. More often than not downstream maintainer as in packager does not
> know the code at all so filling the bug downstream makes no sense since
> it brings just unnecessary latency to the process.
> 3. Hosting our own bugzilla cost resources and does not solve 1. or 2.
> I personally for many years have argued against this since to an
> reporter it might mean having thousand of accounts  but given that we
> are going through new fase and the times are changing in the linux eco
> system I would like to get your opinion about we stop reporting
> altogether in Red Hat bugzilla and report only directly upstream as in
> kernel bugs to the kernel community, Gnome bugs to theirs, KDE to their
> etc.
> The obvious benefit of doing this is that our bugs might actually get
> look at,dealt with as well as all that being done in a shorter time frame.
> Thoughts and comment.

Great idea, but how would one know all that upstream bug tracker URLs
for all packages that are shipped with Fedora?

Is there any tag in RPM package spec file that could be used to provide
such information and are you planning to extend package descriptions so
people can easily find upstream bug tracker URLs?

Are there any plans to provide central information point (wiki, etc.)
with all upstream bug trackers in place of old RH bugzilla?

Mateusz Marzantowicz

More information about the test mailing list