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

Darryl L. Pierce mcpierce at gmail.com
Tue Sep 24 19:23:47 UTC 2013


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:03:23AM +0000, "J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson" wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 01:45 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> >This absolutely does not scale from a POV of a user reporting bugs.
> 
> Well neither does it do so from developer standpoint that also has
> to maintain downstream distribution bugzilla accounts.

Developers in the upstream projects don't have to have accounts in the
various distros' bugtracking systems. Quite the opposite: the package
maintainers should have accounts in the bug tracking systems for the 
upstream projects s/he maintains.

> 
> Basically the amount of work and the effort are on par for both
> parties as in reporter has to file multiple reports against multiple
> package and the developer has to deal with multiple reports against
> multiple distribution in multiple downstreams etc. so arguing one
> has to do more work then the other is a mute point at least as far
> as I see it.

Disagreed.

If there's a bug upstream, and each distro reports it, then the upstream
can mark any additional bug reports as duplicates. Though, again, the
package maintainer for each distro would be expected to check and see if
the bug is already reported and then attach themselves to it for
updates, and also to add that upstream bug link to the BZ.

I do precisely this for the packages I maintain, specifically the Qpid
packages. I also add the JIRA (which is used upstream) to any BZ
reported against the packages. It's pretty simple.

> in any case continue since we need to gather as much feedback as
> well as data points ( like how many bugs are being closed as EOL )
> before throwing this to community voting and once the results from
> that are clear we can focus on improving our procedures in either
> direction.

-- 
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce at gmail.com>
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/
"What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20130924/8356d103/attachment.sig>


More information about the test mailing list