An interesting read when discussing what to do about our bugs...

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le samedi 19 janvier 2008 à 13:10 -0500, seth vidal a écrit :

> Hmm, is that what the 'upstream' close reason is for? Normally, I close
> things 'upstream' when I have checked a fix into the upstream code base.
> Which seems pretty reasonable time to close it to me.

There is a huge variance between maintainers.

Some will only look at fedora bugs
Others will tell you to open bugs upstream, but do nothing if a sister
fedora bug is not opened
Yet others will only look at upstream bugs, and complain if you open a
fedora bug
Others won't look at any bug and rely on upstream grapewine to know what
need to be fixed.

Complete disregard for tester efforts seems widespread. Complaining to
reporters they didn't open an issue in the right place is common. So is
ignoring bugs because supposedly they're not complete enough (without
bothering to explain what complete would be). Even more annoying are
maintainers that ask to do a lot of stuff then ignore completely the
result.

There are exceptions of course (in particular I nominate Caolan McNamara
for being exceptionally responsive ad helpful on openoffice.org bugs).
But most of the times fighting spirit and behaving like a bastard seems
to be a requirement to get issues dealt with (for example forgetting to
block the right fxblocker is a quick way to oblivion)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080119/82e8467f/attachment.sig>