Re: Forwarding bugs upstream
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:38:37 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Felipe Sateler writes ("Re: Forwarding bugs upstream"):
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:56:56 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > I think it is always reasonable for the maintainer to forward the bug
>> > upstream.
>> > But what I think is bad is _demanding_ or _requiring_ the maintainer
>> > to forward the bug upstream. If they don't want to do that for
>> > whatever reason then asking the submitter to do so is IMO perfectly
>> > acceptable.
>> We can't demand or require anyone to do anything. Yet we expect
>> maintainers to answer bug reports, provide packages, etc. The fact that
>> you can't force anyone to do anything doesn't mean you can't say that
>> some behavior is preferred or considered best practice.
> But in this case I don't think we should be "expecting" maintainers to
> necessarily shepherd bug reports upstream. I don't think a maintainer
> who fails to do so is failing in their job as maintainer.
> The maintainer should decide whether they think doing that is a useful
> thing to be doing for that package or that bug, and communicate this
> decision to the user (and set the bug state accordingly).
Just like they do about their whole debian work: prioritizing work and
their own free time.
My point is more along the lines of Bernhard's comment: packages where
the maintainer takes (well-defined) reports upstream are better
maintained than packages where the maintainer does no such thing.
Going back to the OP's comment, when one takes the time to fill a well-
described report, maybe even write a patch for it, the maintainer should
(again, time permitting) forward the request upstream. I do not think it
is reasonable to expect every bug reporter to register in upstream's bug
tracker (unfortunately, a big bunch of upstreams require registration,
even for their mailing lists!), specially when the maintainer should have
already an account.