cross-site bug tracking

[Luis Villa]

On 4/10/07, seth vidal <skvidal at linux.duke.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 17:20 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Yeah, so all that leaves is, uh, policy, strategy, maintenance...
> >
> > So, for example:
> > 1) bug gets filed in fedora bugzilla against package foo
> > 2) copy goes to RHEL bugzilla and to upstream project foo, which is
> > also using the latest, greatest, up-to-date bugzilla. (Highly
> > unlikely, but we can hope.)
> > 3) foo fixes the bug in CVS and the bug is marked fixed.
> > 4) foo's bugzilla notifies fedora bugzilla that the bug is fixed.
> >
> > 5) ________________
> >
> > 6) profit!
> >
> > About step (5). Does Fedora also automatically mark it fixed? Do they
> > wait until the fix hits a tarball? (How do they know when it hits a
> > tarball?) Does RHEL mark it fixed? What about other derivatives? What
> > happens if the problem originated in RHEL instead of Fedora? These
> > questions are difficult to answer, and the least-bad answers are very
> > labor intensive.
>
> Except that even if the upstream project bugzilla just tells the
> fedora/rhel bugzillas that the bug is closed in upstream and what the
> resolution is in a comment it is still an improvement. It isn't
> robotic-bugzilla-army-of-doom perfect but it is MUCH better
> communication than before.

Yeah, it is definitely better than not communicating.

> See I think if we even just got it working for a couple of minor cases
> the movement would come along faster for later ones.
>
> ie: tie gnome bugzilla and fedora bugzilla together using it.

I'm sure GNOME would be pretty happy to work together with you on it.
The current talk of Ubuntu and Debian doing their own collection of
GNOME stack traces just screams bad idea to me, at least until there
is better communication between the trackers. And yes, that would at
least be a start.

Luis

Luis