> Once upon a time, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxx> said: >> I try to leave the RH bug open and even if I report it being an upstream >> problem then update it now and again with the status of things. That way >> people at least know something is happening and when it will be worth >> trying >> an update > > Sometimes the RH bug owner _is_ upstream; I reported a bug in hal-info > data and didn't get a response yet, so I opened a bug upstream. I think > it ended up owned by the same person. > > One argument in favor of having the package owner report bugs upstream > is they presumably have a better idea about how and where, have bugzilla > accounts, etc. They can filter the reports (so when Fedora users open > 10 RH bug entries for the same problem, upstream only has to deal with > one report). The package owner will also need to know when the bug has > been fixed to make an update (in some cases, end-users may need a > package owner to help build test packages as well). I do exactly what Alan does. Making the RH bug a coordinating point is helpful for users, so they don't necessarily have to dig too far to find out what's going on. I have this going on with a roundcubemail security bug going on right now. I have a reference to the upstream bug in the RH bug, so users can see for themselves why it's not updated yet. :/ > -- > Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> > Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services > I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- novus ordo absurdum -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
