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

Re: Reporting bugs upstream



On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:25:43 +0100, Bart Vanbrabant <bart vanbrabant zoeloelip be> wrote:

> When I find a bug in fedora and it's obviously a bug upstream I report
> it there. But do we have to report them in fedora bugzilla too and
> reference the upstream bugreport? So if an other users files a bugreport
> for the same bug and doesn't check upstream maintainer of the module
> know it's already filed upstream. Or do we have to notify the maintainer
> in other way?

It depends on the package, but usually the Fedora maintainer taps into an
announcement list for the upstream project, so he sees those.

This does not preclude users from filing into our bugzilla. I used to
do this in preference to upstream. The logics behind it was that we may
be shipping a derivative, while the upstream only wants to hear about
bugs reproduced on the pristine upstream. Maintainer filters and reports
upstream such bugs. It is the way kernel operated, because it used to
be noticeably divergent from its upstream. But for most packages it's
not needed, so your way is better.

BTW, I like dups, because users often confuse same symptoms with
same bug. I have dozens of people reporting "my kernel said
``ep0 timeout''" for dozens of wildly different problems, all ending
in the same bug which can never be resolved. I would much prefer users
filing dups than polluting unrelated bugs. But in X, the situation
is the opposite: 100 dups for the same thing, and Mike Harris wants
his users to search for dups and avoid filing new ones (if I understand
him right).

So, without knowing the package, I think you probably did the right thing.

-- Pete


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