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

Matthias Clasen mclasen at
Tue Sep 24 12:30:41 UTC 2013

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 19:07 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> Additional concerns I'd have above this:
> - Not all things we ship have active upstream bug trackers to fall back on
> - We still need a way to track Fedora-specific integration & packaging
>   concerns, which would likely get closed upstream as 'NOTABUG' for that
>   project
> - 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.

I don't think all packages are the same when it comes to bug reporting.
Speaking just for GNOME, I will say that getting feedback (in the form
of bugs and crash reports) from rawhide and the 'next' branch during the
development cycle is pretty valuable, and removing overhead (in the form
of extra bugzilla jumps) from this feedback is very good - six month is
too short a time to waste on shuffling bugs and status updates back and

Upstream bugzilla has advantages for us as developers - we can use
git-bz to attach patches, and splinter to review them, which is very

The main advantage of downstream bug reporting at this point is, as far as I'm concerned.


More information about the test mailing list