On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 19:26, Duncan Findlay wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:42:09AM +0200, Christian Surchi wrote: > > Il mer, 2003-10-22 alle 22:38, Riku Voipio ha scritto: > > > This is ludicrous. There is no advantage to anyone if obvious > > > upstream issues pass through debian BTS. Packaging bugs > > > to debian BTS, upstream bugs to upstream BTS. If unsure, > > > to debian BTS. > > > > No, upstream bugs are bugs in Debian too. There's no reason to "hide" > > them. > > I know this is different from the given situation, but the question is > just as valid... > > Is it OK to ask submitters to file wishlist bugs for new features with > upstream? As maintainer of spamassassin, I have generally closed bugs > for new rule requests (asking users to submit upstream), simply > because the number of new rule requests could get to be quite massive; > these requests clutter the BTS, and generally aren't worth the effort > to forward to upstream bugzilla. (If someone created a nice script to > automagically forward Debian bugs to an upstream bugzilla, I would be > greatful.) These bugs aren't problems with Debian but requests for > improving SpamAssassin, and as a result I feel that I should not be > held responsible for forwarding upstream (especially in large > numbers). As a user of the Debian GNU/Linux system I much prefer to interface with a single Bug Tracking System. I can't stand Bugzilla (as I don't want to invest the time to learn how to manipulate it). I would much rather submit even wishlist items via Debian BTS. -- Derek Neighbors GNU Enterprise http://www.gnuenterprise.org derek@gnue.org Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=dneighbo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part