----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jef Spaleta" <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, 2 August, 2013 10:14:31 AM > Subject: Re: Mesa needs an update? > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Morgan Howe <mthowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I didn't say you need to bump it to bleeding edge git. I'm just letting you > > know that there's a pretty serious bug in the current version of mesa that > > is affecting at least a few people - probably even more who just rolled > > back > > to F18 and didn't bother filing a bug report. I'm well aware that a version > > bump might introduce new bugs, but just thought someone might want to > > consider at least looking into it since a completely broken X is a fairly > > major issue. > > okay im a little confused. You filed it and then closed it as upstream. > > How does that help the package maintainer in Fedora keep track of this > as an outstanding issue to possibly address as an update? > > You've short circuited the bug workflow a bit by jumping the gun and > marking your own issue as resolved. I believe the intent with regard > to the UPSTREAM resolution in our bugzilla workflow is for > "maintainers" to use to mark as resolved with the intention of pulling > new upstream release and pushing it as an update some time soonish. > If as the reporter you mark it as resolved, you've greatly reduced the > chance that a maintainer is going to notice the bug as still > outstanding. So you might want to rethink how you handled this report. Also unless he rebuild the upstream mesa in rpm with the same flags, I'm not sure this is guaranteed fixed upstream. Dave. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
