Moving away from reporting to RH bugzilla and adopting pure upstream reporting mantra.
jmorris at beau.org
Wed Sep 25 20:25:57 UTC 2013
On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 18:17 -0700, Bob Arendt wrote:
> The Fedora bugzilla, even if occasionally non-responsive, is
> *very* convenient. One can at least see if other users are
> experiencing the same issue. And other Fedora users cat
> at least leave bug comments that might aid other users
> (even if the comment points upstream).
This is my experience as well. I no longer expect bugs to actually get
closed but BZ is useful as a resource to read. The fix might even show
up in a future package, even if the BZ# stays active or simply ages out.
None of that changes the usefulness of searching through it.
And after reading through this whole discussion there is really only one
conclusion. Fedora is dysfunctional. Debugging is harder than writing
and the developers have made Fedora as large and as complex as they can
make it, meaning they can't possibly debug it anymore. Debating the
details of infrastructure, who to report to, none of that is going to
matter until the elephant in the room is dealt with.
A little more care needs to go into deciding what is Fedora, if it can't
be maintained it shouldn't be included. The ongoing talk to split
Fedora into a well maintained core and layers above that is probably the
right general direction.
And while 'first' is a good goal, 'works' should perhaps be elevated to
a co-equal status. Because if it doesn't work it isn't going to be
Perhaps a rule that if packages you maintain have X or more bugs any
packages pushed need to close a BZ#. And of the total bug count exceeds
a limit nobody can upload a new package that isn't fixing a bug. Making
new shiny is always more fun than maintaining, given a choice most
people will go for fun and leave the fixing for 'later.'
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the test