"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes: > I've noticed a trend lately that I am often asked to forward the bugs > I report to the Debian BTS upstream, either by the maintainers or > automatically by a bug script. I believe, and I continue to believe, > that maintainers should forward bugs upstream instead of requiring (or > strongly encouraging) users to do so. +1 > I understand that maintainers' time is limited and that forwarding > bugs is not an enjoyable task. But I also understand that having a BTS > account for the upstream BTS of each of the 2405 packages I have > installed on my laptop (not to mention my other machines) is simply > not practical. I also don't have the benefit of the rapport that a > maintainer has with upstream and knowledge of upstream practices. Yes, I agree with that position. It is even more reasonable when one considers that the person who has chosen to be a maintainer for Debian package ‘foo’ has some amount of obligation to have an account with the upstream BTS for ‘foo’, whereas an arbitrary user of ‘foo’ does not. > I try very hard to make my bug reports simple, clear, and well-defined > (often with testcases) to make it easier for them to be forwarded and > fixed, and if they're not, I'm happy to clarify or test so that they > can be. And I try to submit patches as my time and abilities permit. > If it happens that I need to be added to the CC list of the upstream > bug report to assist in fixing it, I'm usually fine with that if > asked. Yes, this is all a fair expectation of the user by the maintainer, in exchange for being the contact point for the package in Debian. -- \ “To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to | `\ unlearn old falsehoods.” —Robert Anson Heinlein | _o__) | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgp6fBllog6am.pgp
Description: PGP signature