On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote: > >> 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses > > If nobody is complaining about the bug, then fixing the bug can wait > until the next Fedora release. Do you have the time to properly report all bugs? I don't, so I have to pick my battles. On top of that, as an upstream of Openswan, I can also tell you that a lot of people report "bugs" to upstream that have been fixed eons ago. It has gotten so bad, that most of the time I have to say "Upgrade - yes I know it is the latest debian pacakge but you need to upgrade anyway". I'd really like Fedora not to go that way. > If they're willing to debug, why are they not willing to test? People usually just "need to get the thing done". They are willing to debug their problem if that might get their work done. They don't often want to help pre-emptively with testing. Most Openswan tests for new bugs happen by people compiling from source with a test patch from us, not by "updates-testing" versions of a distro. I think there is a clear difference in a pure software bug, as compared to an "intergration" bug. Firefox not working with pulse is not something easilly caught before a software release. A protocol implementation fix for IPsec in openswan more likely is. But an openswan network manager integration bug is not. > I agree that making it easier to test packages would be beneficial in a > wide range of cases. A quicker way of seeing if a bug report was alread made, and more quickly being able to report bugs then spending 15-30 with bugzilla would help me in reporting more bugs. I like the automated crash reporting, though I'm not sure where they go, as I havent received a single report from them on any of my +/- 30 packages. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
