Re: 0-day bug forwarding and bug patching on ALL bugs
* Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> [070227 20:46]:
> You've read this correctly! Starting TEN YEARS AGO, we are in
> permanent bug triaging, bug forwarding, but patching party on ALL
> bugs, pick one before it's too late!
> You may immediately take any bugs which didn't receive due care and
> forward it upstream and/or send a patch to it and/or request more
I think there are two problems here:
First problem is that the list misses the most important stuff. It's no
fun to look at bugs when the bug-list is a utter mess. What is needed
- retitling the bug-report to properly describe the problem
- tag bugs to get clear view (when there are many bugs):
- what has enough information to reproduce it
- what has not (even more important)
- what are upstream issues
- closing fixed bugs
- closing things that are obviously no bugs
- reassigning bugs to where the problem is
This is all best done in a coordinated way. But it needs to be done
anyway. Otherwise suggesting "you may forward it upstream and/or send a patch"
is a bad joke.
The other problem is that your sentence contained a "didn't recevice due
care". Many people are a bit reluctant to imply something like that.
What about something like the low-treshold-nmu page for bugs? That may
be both be usefull as a indicator where people wanting to help can help
and as way to allow people also the things from the list above.
Bernhard R. Link