On 2008-01-19, 18:10 GMT, seth vidal wrote: > 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. OK, this is something which should be well described in the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JonStanley/BugWorkflow (Jon?). Closing upstream is from the maintainer's point of view pretty difficult thing to do. First rule, which I try to always hold with Xorg bugs is that the bug should *NEVER* be closed as UPSTREAM unless I have number of the upstream bug in the External Bugzilla References (or in the comment, if the upstream bugzilla is not available among external bugzilla references; fortunately, that doesn't happen for the bugs I triage). So, even if I ask reporter to file the bug upstream (and I do it less and less), I put them in NEEDINFO, and close the bug as UPSTREAM only when they come bug with the number of the upstream bug. I totally understand the reasons why we ask reporters to file the bug, and why it is problematic to file a bug ourselves (after all, it is THEIR bug, they can reproduce it, test the fix, provide additional information, etc.), but still I do it less and less. Now I usually try to find a duplicate bug in the upstream bugzilla (trip into Mozilla bugzilla always cheers me up -- if our bugzilla is mess, and it is, I have no words to describe their bugzilla ;-)), and suggest to the reporter to comment on it and join the happy crowd around that bug in the upstream bugzilla. The reason is that asking them to file a bug upstream (internally called "a request for suicide") is very bad from the marketing point of view. I feel that we should treat the bug reporters as our most valuable asset (which they are), and to be very careful not to alieante them. If there is a person, who is willing to file a reasonably thought-through bug to our bugzilla, it is a person, which is extremely valuable to us (because that's the only QA we have in Fedora, and because open-source software is bug driven). However, I don't think it is necessary to close bug upstream only when I have actually fixed it (unless you are a primary developer of the particular component, as seth is). Whole point of upstreaming bugs (and you can read it in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#upstream which is actually pretty good resource to read) is that everybody from all distributions can join their efforts about fixing the bug, so the issue doesn't have to be fixed multiple times in each distro independently. It is always a good idea to write something in such sense to the comment by which you either ask reporter to file a bug upstream, or by the one by which you close the bug. Just my 0.02 CZK ;-) Matěj -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
