[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Good communication with upstream is good idea

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 09:38 -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 
> > Launchpad can already be used as an openid /provider/ today, but I haven't
> > heard anything to indicate it will allow logins via other openid providers;
> > is more information available about this somewhere?
> > 
> > And even if LP accepted other openid providers, one would still have to log
> > in to LP the first time in order to configure which openid provider to use,
> > which I guess is still going to be more effort than some are interested in
> > doing. :)
> What is the problem with closing the Debian bugs in the Debian
> changelog, and letting the Ubuntu MOTU (I hope I am using the right
> terminology here) handle the Ubuntu bug tracking?

There is none.

> I am speaking from the standpoint of a Debian Developer that is not
> affiliated with Ubuntu. If a Developer is handling both the Debian and
> Ubuntu packaging, then they can do as they feel best.
> I know that I test the Debian bugs prior to closing. I don't test Ubuntu
> builds - so I wold find it very presumptuous to close an Ubuntu bug.

There are situations where you would know that the bug is fixed on both
builds, e.g. if it's just an outright bug in the source and not a
Debian-specific problem. In those cases, if you wish to, you can use
(LP: #######) to close out the bugs just like you close out Debian bugs.

You're not required to do that, but if you want to be helpful to them,
then it's an option you have available.

There are clear advantages to doing it, such as that it helps improve
the Debian distribution ecosystem. As Ubuntu is the largest derivitive,
to some extent, monitoring the buglist for your packages there helps to
improve your own QA efforts on the packaging.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: