[zanata-users] release version 1.3.0 of zanata-python-client

[Sean Flanigan]

On 08/25/2011 01:06 PM, Jens Petersen wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
>> Do you think we need commit python client bug as Fedora product? or we
>> still commit it as Zanata product?
> 
> I think Fedora users who don't know "better" will report bugs
> against zanata-python-client under the Fedora product in Bugzilla.
> In fact I was surprised not to find any bugs there... ;)
> 
> Asking people to use the Zanata product to search and report bugs for
> a Fedora package is unintuitive and more work for them.
> Currently the user-base may be contained/educated enough for this to work
> but this will change when more general users pick up the package...
> 
> Strictly the Zanata product is for upstream and that is ok too for the server-side service
> I guess - for the python client package I feel using the Fedora product is more natural.
> 
> That's my 2 yen anyway...
> 
> Jens


If you're reporting a bug against a released version of the fedora
package zanata-python-client, (or rawhide, I suppose), you *should* use
zanata-python-client under the Fedora product.

Sometimes the fix is just to release a new version of the package,
because it's fixed upstream in git, or it's a dependency problem.  In
other cases, we should create a second, upstream bug against the Zanata
product, so that we can schedule it for a sprint, and make use of the
custom fields in Bugzilla.

However, if you're running the client directly from git, you should
report against the upstream Zanata product.  That way, bugs which are
found by the development team (for instance) before release don't clog
up the Fedora package.

-- 
Sean Flanigan

Senior Software Engineer
Engineering - Internationalisation
Red Hat

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/zanata-users/attachments/20110825/09a9ba77/attachment.sig>