Maintainer Responsibilities

[Till Maas]

On Wed June 3 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Steve Grubb wrote:
> > And then should the bug be closed hoping that one day you pull in a
> > package that solves the user's problem?
>
> If the bug is fixed upstream, the Fedora report can be reopened with a
> request to backport the fix (but that should only be done if it's important
> enough that it cannot wait for the next bugfix update getting pushed
> anyway).
>
> Until then, why do we need to have the bug open in 2 places? The ball is in
> upstream's court as long as we're waiting for them to fix the issue, we've
> done our part as packagers, so as far as we're concerned the issue is
> closed. As for those cases where the upstream maintainer is the same as the

If the new bugfix release update is created, do you include there all RH bugs 
that are closed UPSTREAM but fixed with this update? Keeping the bugs open to 
not forget to add the to the update is imho the most important reason for bugs 
that are already reported upstream.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090604/5fc5fad7/attachment.sig>