Pierre Habouzit wrote: > 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). You're describing a situation where upstream is difficult or impossible to communicate with. I can't solve that, nor can anyone except upstream. In that case, it really doesn't matter whether the list of Debian patches is on patches.debian.org, or on a page in the BTS. If upstream wants to, they can look at them either way. So in this case it's equivilant, but the cases that seem more interesting and likely to yield benefits are the ones where communication with upstream is possible. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature