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

Re: Forwarding bugs upstream

Olaf van der Spek writes ("Re: Forwarding bugs upstream"):
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> wrote:
> >> Will this mean that the problem will somehow disappear from
> >> Debian?  Because if it's a problem detected within Debian it's my
> >> feeling that it will have to be tracked within Debian till the
> >> problem is in Debian no more.
> >
> > No. but it is a way to be honest about teh issue: We are not spending
> > debian time on fixing it.
> That's better than no response to a bug report at all.

That's true too.

But on the whole I think it would be better to leave these kind of
work-needed upstream bugs open in the Debian BTS but tagged and filed

As I understand it we are not in danger of having infrastructure
capacity problems at the BTS due to these bugs, and the maintainers
who think they are a very low priority don't want to see them can
easily arrange that with the pretty sophisticated filtering and
searching we have nowadays.

But I think that's a matter of best practice and not something I'd
beat a maintainer up about.

I do want to say that from the opposite angle, I do often really
appreciate it when a maintainer has the time to engage with upstream
over my bugs.  I often file bugs in the Debian BTS which are really
upstream bugs because I think this is going to produce a better
overall result for less effort - eg, because Debian and the Debian
maintainer are better organised than the upstream.  Many maintainers
seem to appreciate this too.

But if a maintainer tells me "please go and talk to them yourself" or
even "please stop filing these kind of upstream bugs in Debian - you
know how to do it yourself upstream and I have enough to do already"
then that's a wish I would respect.

So I guess ultimately what I'm saying is that questions like this
can't really be one-size-fits-all.  And it is the maintainer who is
the right person to decide what the best approach is.


Reply to: