On So, 2010-02-07 at 15:34 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:23:13 +0100, Stefan wrote: > > > The question was if the package maintainer should > > be triggered first instead of upstream which increases the load for the > > package maintainer who might not be able to handle all of these requests > > in the end because it is not his/her full time job. > > Well, that isn't straight-forward to answer IMO. > > First of all, upstream may not be paid either for working on the software > _and_ on incoming problem reports. What sort of "support" and response > time can you expect from upstream in that case? > > Secondly, the package maintainer should be informed about what is broken > with the chosen/packaged software release. Certainly you don't ask for > upstream to filter out *all* reports from all distributions, to return > distribution-specific ones into a dist's own bug tracking system, and to > work on incomplete backtraces or problems that aren't trivial to reproduce > in the absence of the original bug reporter. Depending on the software > quality it may be that upstream cannot handle all that either. > > Fedora packages are not fire'n'forget releases. Even if you forwarded > every bugzilla ticket to upstream, you would still need to monitor the > status of the forwarded reports or fix issues yourself, provided that they > matter to you. Whether they should matter to you also depends on project > strategies and goals and whether Fedora wants to deliver added value. In > some cases, the product (or individual packages) may suffer from > insufficient contributor resources, and a single package maintainer > may not be enough. Hmm yeah. I see the problem. It would even get worse when e.g. some patches are applied to the package, then upstream couldn't even debug properly. Nasty situation ;-) I will think about it. Hopefully it was not too off topic. Thanks for letting me know, Stefan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
