Re: Forwarding bugs upstream
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 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.
Yes. If nothing in Debian will happen to a bug report until upstream
gets their act together, tagging to indicate that is fine. Closing the
bug isn't appropriate, since the bug as reported still exists in Debian.
> But I think that's a matter of best practice and not something I'd
> beat a maintainer up about.
Same here.
> 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.
Perhaps we don't say this enough in public.
> 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.
As would I; but, as stated earlier, often the only way I can feasibly
respect such a wish is not to report such bugs at all.
> 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.
Sure, but that's true of just about anything associated with the
maintainer role. It's still good to discuss and argue the various
positions for what the maintainer role should entail.
--
\ “Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I |
`\ guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis.” —Jack Handey |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: