Le samedi 19 janvier 2008 à 13:10 -0500, seth vidal a écrit : > Hmm, is that what the 'upstream' close reason is for? Normally, I close > things 'upstream' when I have checked a fix into the upstream code base. > Which seems pretty reasonable time to close it to me. There is a huge variance between maintainers. Some will only look at fedora bugs Others will tell you to open bugs upstream, but do nothing if a sister fedora bug is not opened Yet others will only look at upstream bugs, and complain if you open a fedora bug Others won't look at any bug and rely on upstream grapewine to know what need to be fixed. Complete disregard for tester efforts seems widespread. Complaining to reporters they didn't open an issue in the right place is common. So is ignoring bugs because supposedly they're not complete enough (without bothering to explain what complete would be). Even more annoying are maintainers that ask to do a lot of stuff then ignore completely the result. There are exceptions of course (in particular I nominate Caolan McNamara for being exceptionally responsive ad helpful on openoffice.org bugs). But most of the times fighting spirit and behaving like a bastard seems to be a requirement to get issues dealt with (for example forgetting to block the right fxblocker is a quick way to oblivion) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
