[arch-dev-public] Handling of upstream bugs in our bug tracker
Hi, We currently have around 70 open linux bugs, most of which we likely won't fix ourselves. I know some of you think we should keep them open for reference until upstream fixed the bug, but I think this just clutters our bug tracker. Given the amount of duplicates I've seen, I also doubt users use the search feature or google so they don't find to reference bugs anyway. Linux bugs are just an example, but there are certainly more and I think we should just tell the reporter to go to upstream and close our bug. If upstream is dead or doesn't have a mailing list/bug tracker, we can keep the bug, but in that case we should think about dropping the package. If it turns out to be a packaging bug we can still reopen it later. -- Florian Pritz -- {flo,bluewind}@server-speed.net
Il 13/02/2012 17:45, Florian Pritz ha scritto:
Hi,
We currently have around 70 open linux bugs, most of which we likely won't fix ourselves. I know some of you think we should keep them open for reference until upstream fixed the bug, but I think this just clutters our bug tracker. Given the amount of duplicates I've seen, I also doubt users use the search feature or google so they don't find to reference bugs anyway.
Linux bugs are just an example, but there are certainly more and I think we should just tell the reporter to go to upstream and close our bug. If upstream is dead or doesn't have a mailing list/bug tracker, we can keep the bug, but in that case we should think about dropping the package. If it turns out to be a packaging bug we can still reopen it later.
+1 I totally agree -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.it
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Florian Pritz
Linux bugs are just an example, but there are certainly more and I think we should just tell the reporter to go to upstream and close our bug. If upstream is dead or doesn't have a mailing list/bug tracker, we can keep the bug, but in that case we should think about dropping the package. If it turns out to be a packaging bug we can still reopen it later.
I agree that we should more aggressively close upstream bugs. However, there are still cases where the Arch packagers might wan to stay involved (at least for a while), so I guess it should be decided on a case-by-case basis (linux is a good example though). Before we close as upstream, I think it would be a good practice (which I guess many already do) to request the reporter to file a bug upstream and post a link to the upstream bug report. Cheers, Tom -t
On 14/02/12 02:45, Florian Pritz wrote:
Hi,
We currently have around 70 open linux bugs, most of which we likely won't fix ourselves. I know some of you think we should keep them open for reference until upstream fixed the bug, but I think this just clutters our bug tracker. Given the amount of duplicates I've seen, I also doubt users use the search feature or google so they don't find to reference bugs anyway.
Linux bugs are just an example, but there are certainly more and I think we should just tell the reporter to go to upstream and close our bug. If upstream is dead or doesn't have a mailing list/bug tracker, we can keep the bug, but in that case we should think about dropping the package. If it turns out to be a packaging bug we can still reopen it later.
I personally like keeping these bugs open. Provided I make sure they all have links to the upstream bug report, it means all my bugs to follow are gathered in the one place. So I say leave it to the maintainer to decide. Allan
On 13 February 2012 21:02, Allan McRae
I personally like keeping these bugs open. Provided I make sure they all have links to the upstream bug report, it means all my bugs to follow are gathered in the one place.
So I say leave it to the maintainer to decide. I agree with Allan.
-- Andrea
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Florian Pritz
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
Tom Gundersen