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

Re: Maintainer Responsibilities

On Jueves 04 Junio 2009 20:23:01 Adam Williamson escribió:
> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 17:27 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > I'll happily raise upstream bugs myself but it irks me when maintainers
> > close Fedora bugs with the UPSTREAM resolution without actually taking
> > the upstream fix and bringing it into Fedora.
> >
> > If I've reported a bug in Fedora bugzilla it's because the bug is
> > present in Fedora and I'd like to see it fixed *in Fedora*. So seeing a
> > bug closed UPSTREAM doesn't help at all if I have a real problem with a
> > Fedora package.
> In Mandriva I had it set up so Bugzilla has both an UPSTREAM
> *resolution* and an UPSTREAM *keyword*. This handles this situation.
> If, say, the bug is in a package that gets frequent releases, and was
> filed on the development release, you can just use CLOSED UPSTREAM,
> because you can rely on the fact that there'll be a new upstream release
> of the package soon after the upstream report is fixed, you (the
> maintainer) will then naturally package the new release, and the fix for
> the bug will have been rolled into the distribution package without you
> having to do anything besides your normal packaging work.
> In other situations, you can set the UPSTREAM keyword, so the bug
> remains open but you know it's being handled upstream and you need to
> bring the fix downstream once it's available upstream.

I like idea of some TRACKING_UPSTREAM keyword - it's easy to search and CLOSED 
bugs are not as easy to search for duplicates when you are reporting bug.


> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net

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