On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 00:51 -0400, Eric Griffith wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 00:34, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 20:59 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Adam Williamson > > > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This would be a major problem for the release validation process. We > > > > need to be able to track the *downstream* status of release blocking > > > > fixes. An upstream bug is not a good way to do this. > > > > > > Probably the best solution is not to actually forbid filing bugs, but > > > to have a bot that adds a comment that the bug is unlikely to be > > > reviewed on Red Hat Bugzilla and instructing the user as to how to > > > report the bug upstream. Then we can just ignore that comment when we > > > need a bug for release validation purposes etc. > > > > OK. And to be honest, this isn't limited to release validation and > > blocker bugs. What generally happens when an RHBZ report gets kicked > > upstream is the bug gets fixed...upstream. Often it only gets fixed on > > git master, which means it will likely *never* get fixed in the Fedora > > release it was actually filed against. If we're lucky the fix might > > also be committed to the most recent stable branch, which is probably > > the GNOME in the most recent Fedora release, so if there's ever another > > point release on that branch (often there aren't any after .2), the fix > > might *eventually* make its way back to the most recent Fedora release. > > But if we're at .2, or the bug was filed on the previous stable Fedora > > release, the fix may well never actually make it back to the Fedora > > release the reporter is running without someone taking ownership and > > bugging people to commit to different branches, do point releases, and > > ship updates to Fedora. > > Other than more point releases and more branches, what's really the > solution? I only see three real options: we convince upstream to do > more point releases; we 'fork' it and do our own point releases, > regardless of upstream; or we just bite the bullet and always ship > latest Gnome, even if that means bumping major versions. > > Is there a fourth option to you, Adam? Other than the status quo I mean. Apply patches to downstream package builds. It's not that difficult, and we do it relatively often. But it requires someone to care about downstream, and it has to be *tracked* downstream, which is the point of this subthread. It's not appropriate for an upstream bug tracker; so far as the *upstream* tracker is concerned, the bug's fixed as soon as the commit hits git master, usually. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
