On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:07:33PM +0000, Joey Hess wrote: > > > In my original mail, I said that bugs tagged as divergences could > > > likewise be sorted out of the way. > > > > I'm not convinced > > You're not convinced that divergences could be sorted out of the way in > the bug display? Is there something in the BTS code that makes you think > that cannot be done? I'm not convinced that the BTS is the best UI for doing so yes. Not that the BTS isn't patchable to work this way. > > and for what it's worth, it's yet another > > (unreadable) place upstreams will have to look at (and won't because > > they just can't follow every bug tracker out there that isn't theirs). > > You still seem to be missing things that I wrote in my first mail. In > particular, bugs can be forwarded upstream. No I read them, and I'm interested in how you intend to do so _automatically_. Because if it isn't automatic, then we're back to the current situation _plus_ filing bug in our own BTS. I fail to see where the revolution is. And I believe the "automation" of sending bugs upstream unsolvable, because I tried to solve it, and failed. Of course, when upstream is Mailing-list driven this is easy. But when your upstream is KDE (or glibc, or ..) that uses a bugzilla with subprojects, components and so on, before even _thinking_ of filing a bug, you have to file half a dozen of fields to document where your patch should go. And _this_ is painful, and _this_ is why so few bugs are forwarded upstream. And then not so long time ago you even had to follow the upstream bug because nothing did that for you (and here bts-link was a big improvement for many teams I think). I'm sorry but "we can forward patches upstream" look like either you're missing a real technical problem in your proposal, or handwaving. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp542oUVIIc8.pgp
Description: PGP signature