-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I think it is simple BAD to close bugreports with "upstream"! For me as "enduser" of fedora i have one bugzilla and i really like to help with bugreports, try things if maintainer needs better explains what happens.
But i have no time and no energy to register on the bugzilla of every piece of software i have installed and i can not look at bugzilla from rsync, kde, amarok..... the whole time.
Should the enduser try patches and svn-versions? NO he is user and that was it If someone maintains a package he can test this much better and understands many things the normal user never can and want to konw
I know the maintainer can't too for all BUT he get's only bugs for packages which he maintains, he konws (or should know) the software he maintains and normally i think he/she have a watch at upstream-bugzilla and knows MUCH more about the upstream project as the most users
So i think the maintainer should play as "relay", taking fedora-bugreports and in many cases report them with much more knowing about the software upstream.
If you want that the enduser report bugs upstream you get no repsonse in many cases because the user will say "WTF i wanted to help and you want to say me exactly how i have to help" and after this happens trhee times he is frustrated and will never ever report bugs
As poweruser you could use many applications and find mny small bugs in all of them - If you try to handle all of that stuff in the upstream-project and have a fulltimejob and a family you would egt a problem - reporting bugs on fedora-bz or lost your life and deal with all upstream-projects you know
Forget it - I think this is maintainers work or you will lost respnses time after time
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Reindl Harald wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I think it is simple BAD to close bugreports with "upstream"! For me as "enduser" of fedora i have one bugzilla and i really like to help with bugreports, try things if maintainer needs better explains what happens.
I am the packager for some pkgs and I'm also one of the upstream maintainers.
I'll close bugs 'upstream' when I've fixed them in the upstream tree but not yet pushed them out to fedora.
-sv
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:45:21PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
I think it is simple BAD to close bugreports with "upstream"!
+1 That's one step away from just ignoring the user.
So i think the maintainer should play as "relay", taking fedora-bugreports and in many cases report them with much more knowing about the software upstream.
This is what I posted yesterday. The package maintainer should act as the face for their package(s) to the user. If the maintainer is not the upstream, then part of their job as maintainer should be to relay those bugs to the upstream, opening the bugs there, and then ensuring any patches or updates are moved into Fedora as soon as they're available.
Reindl Harald wrote:
If you want that the enduser report bugs upstream you get no repsonse in many cases because the user will say "WTF i wanted to help and you want to say me exactly how i have to help" and after this happens trhee times he is frustrated and will never ever report bugs
Your misunderstanding is there: it's US maintainers that are helping YOU reporters by fixing your bugs. If you think you don't need our help because you don't care about the bug anyway, we can just close it as INSUFFICIENT_DATA and stop there.
Kevin Kofler
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:26:12PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Reindl Harald wrote:
If you want that the enduser report bugs upstream you get no repsonse in many cases because the user will say "WTF i wanted to help and you want to say me exactly how i have to help" and after this happens trhee times he is frustrated and will never ever report bugs
Your misunderstanding is there: it's US maintainers that are helping YOU reporters by fixing your bugs. If you think you don't need our help because you don't care about the bug anyway, we can just close it as INSUFFICIENT_DATA and stop there.
Careful with that "we". I'd rather have a large list of open but low priority and difficult to reproduce bugs than have users who never bother reporting bugs in the first place - I may never get round to fixing them myself, but having that bug open makes it easier for other people who hit the same issue to determine that it is a bug and perhaps save themselves some time. And if it ever does get fixed, then that's even better. Flagging it closed means that's less likely to happen, and the quality of the software that we ship (and, as a result, the perceived usefulness of Fedora) is lower as a result.
Reindl Harald, Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:45:21 +0200:
I think it is simple BAD to close bugreports with "upstream"! For me as "enduser" of fedora i have one bugzilla and i really like to help with bugreports, try things if maintainer needs better explains what happens.
As you can see from this thread, there are as many opinions on this issue as there are packages in Fedora ;-). It all depends from the style of packager's work. E.g., openoffice.org maintainer prefers to move all non- packaging bugs upstream ASAP (he does the moving) and then he works on them upstream (firefox maintainers have similar attitude). Advantage (and one of the foundational pieces of Red Hat philosophy) is that a) our work can be shared with others, b) we can use results of others work.
And yes, whole process of upstreaming should be invisible and painless to reporter of RH bug, but our tooling in this area is non-existent. Join the party at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452962 :)
Matej
-
Darryl L. Pierce -
Kevin Kofler -
Matej Cepl -
Matthew Garrett -
Reindl Harald -
Seth Vidal