On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 11:58 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: > On 03/25/2013 11:53 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > The components have to stay the number of maintainers need to be > > increased behind relevant component(s) and or those maintainers that are > > unwilling or otherwise unable to due their due diligence in their > > distribution maintainership for one reason or another be replaced with > > once that are. > > I believe they *are* doing their due diligence, it's just that they're > upstream. I've fallen into the trap of reporting certain things > downstream (even outside of GNOME) and finding out later that it's > better to report upstream for certain components. > > We can't expect our users to know which components in Fedora's bugzilla > are *real* and which you're better off not bothering with. > > Maybe if we can auto-detect a maintainer in our downstream is the same > as a maintainer upstream, we pre-fill the bug template for their > component with 'don't use this, file at bugzilla.upstream.org'? And then > if the downstream maintainer ever changes, reactivating the component? That's pretty horrible UI, isn't it? And somewhat discouraging after you work through the rather slow process of (possibly) opening a BZ account, selecting a product and then another product (however that weird first two steps flies) and then a component, on three different screens, from what is let's face it not the world's fastest Bugzilla instance. It still might be better than the alternative, but I have to say I'm kinda siding with Viking at least in theory here: Fedora is pretty solidly designed around the belief that Fedora bug reports need to get attended to. Of course, there's a question of practicality here, but still. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
