[arch-dev-public] "Upstream" bug closure

Andreas Radke andyrtr at archlinux.org
Sat Apr 14 07:52:05 EDT 2012

Am Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:28:36 +0200
schrieb Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net>:

> On za, 2012-04-14 at 11:53 +0200, Andreas Radke wrote:
> > When we say we ship vanilla stuff it's valid to close with
> > "upstream" and leave post release fixes up to the users.
> > 
> > If we see it our task to fix true bugs we can apply patch
> > everything.
> > 
> > That's a question of "Arch way".
> So the Arch Way is to package broken software and close any bug you
> receive as upstream?

If a bug doesn't affect all users I tend to say yes. We ship what
is working for most users. When a workaround is known (e.g. pkg
downgrade, some config file option...) we can close the bug as upstream
or apply a fix that will work for all users.

If no fix is available I don't see the need to keep a copy of an
upstream report open for all time. I'm fine with leaving bugs open
until upstream has received all needed information (usually upstream
bug reports) and then close our bug.

We could define a rule all devs should follow to define what the "Arch
way" means. A simple sometimes broken toolkit to leave it up to the
users or work much harder and ship a best working out of the box
distro. Our men power is limited and our current way seems to work
pretty well for years now depending how much time the pkg maintainer
has and how good he knows the pkg and upstream development. Can't we
keep it that way?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20120414/99813a61/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list