[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 07:34:57PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
nodata wrote:
Am Samstag, den 19.01.2008, 13:10 -0500 schrieb seth vidal:
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 19:08 +0100, nodata wrote:

Apart from security bugs, I have never had a bug fixed in Ubuntu, ever.
The tactic seems to be to wait until Debian fix it, or wait until Debian
fix it and then ask you to upgrade to the next release.

Fedora does a lot better, much better, but probably the most annoying
aspect of using Fedora's bugzilla is the attitude of some of the
maintainers (not all) and the "closing, report upstream" attitude.

Closing a bug report with "report it upstream" is a let down. It's
repetitive boring work that a computer should be doing.

It takes a lot of effort to report a bug, and by this I mean that I know
a *lot* of people who find a bug, and maybe a fix, but don't bug report
it. They should be, but I can see why they don't.
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.


I'm talking about closing the bug and telling the reporter to report
upstream, i.e. "go away".

I agree that the above is bad.

Sometimes (rarely) I do forward a bugreport upstream (using upstream's preferred bug tracking mechanism) and then kindly explain that I'm not intimate enough with the code to fix the issue at hand with a reasonable effort, point them to the upstream bug and add them to the CC there if possible. And then close with a resolution of upstream. Not very pretty, but honest and way better then letting bugs linger for months.

It is possible to link tickets between the Red Hat bugzilla and other
BZ instances. At the bottom there is a 'External Bugzilla References'
form - simply add the number of the associated upstream BZ ticket. Rather than entering upstream and then closing the RH BZ ticket, I'd
suggest using this linkage between BZ instances. Then when the upstream
maintainer finds a fix, you still have a record of the fact that it
needs to be pulled into Fedora. If you close the Fedora BZ, you'll
never remember to pull in the fix from upstream.

I know about the BZ link feature and I always use it when a bug is reported both upstream and in Fedora, but I've never ever seen any good come out of it, I would expect Fedora BZ to send out mails to those CC-ed on the Fedora bug when something happens in the upstream linked bug, maybe even add a comment when the upstream bug changes, but it does none of the above, so I wonder what is the added value of using the BZ link feature instead of just putting an url to upstream's ticket in a comment?



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]