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

[Jon Ciesla]

> Once upon a time, Alan Cox <alan at redhat.com> said:
>> I try to leave the RH bug open and even if I report it being an upstream
>> problem then update it now and again with the status of things. That way
>> people at least know something is happening and when it will be worth
>> trying
>> an update
>
> Sometimes the RH bug owner _is_ upstream; I reported a bug in hal-info
> data and didn't get a response yet, so I opened a bug upstream.  I think
> it ended up owned by the same person.
>
> One argument in favor of having the package owner report bugs upstream
> is they presumably have a better idea about how and where, have bugzilla
> accounts, etc.  They can filter the reports (so when Fedora users open
> 10 RH bug entries for the same problem, upstream only has to deal with
> one report).  The package owner will also need to know when the bug has
> been fixed to make an update (in some cases, end-users may need a
> package owner to help build test packages as well).

I do exactly what Alan does.  Making the RH bug a coordinating point is
helpful for users, so they don't necessarily have to dig too far to find
out what's going on. I have this going on with a roundcubemail security
bug going on right now.  I have a reference to the upstream bug in the RH
bug, so users can see for themselves why it's not updated yet. :/

> --
> Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
> I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>


-- 
novus ordo absurdum