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

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at gmail.com
Tue Sep 24 13:04:18 UTC 2013


On 09/24/2013 12:50 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:44:02 +0000
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what that response is supposed to be adding to the
>> discussion since it's a well known fact the discomfort it brings to
>> reporters to have them go upstream to report.
> I've added it because have stated "bugs" go unanswered.
> That is the "problem" need fixing, not bugzilla.

There are 4 reasons that happens.

1. the packager is gone awol
2. the packager does not know how to fix
3. the maintainer lacks time to fix it.
4. bugzilla is not the interface the maintainer finds effective so he 
ignores it

>
> Is missing maintainer period too long?
> Extra co-maintainers needed, with commit access?
>
> Now can you throw as much endeavour into helping resolve that
>

To effectively resolve that you need to reduce the total number of 
components in the distribution as well as how many components maintainer 
is allowed to maintain as well as finding the communication interface 
with the maintainer which he finds effective.

Reporting upstream is one solution to the interface problem, detecting 
poorly maintained packages as well as orphaning unmaintained packages 
and coming up with a time sharing program takes care of the rest.

With the exception of reporting directly upstream which I have been 
always against, I pointed out the other things and you can find the 
discussion surrounding that in the archives on devel.

JBG


More information about the test mailing list