On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 18:17 -0700, Bob Arendt wrote: > The Fedora bugzilla, even if occasionally non-responsive, is > *very* convenient. One can at least see if other users are > experiencing the same issue. And other Fedora users cat > at least leave bug comments that might aid other users > (even if the comment points upstream). This is my experience as well. I no longer expect bugs to actually get closed but BZ is useful as a resource to read. The fix might even show up in a future package, even if the BZ# stays active or simply ages out. None of that changes the usefulness of searching through it. And after reading through this whole discussion there is really only one conclusion. Fedora is dysfunctional. Debugging is harder than writing and the developers have made Fedora as large and as complex as they can make it, meaning they can't possibly debug it anymore. Debating the details of infrastructure, who to report to, none of that is going to matter until the elephant in the room is dealt with. A little more care needs to go into deciding what is Fedora, if it can't be maintained it shouldn't be included. The ongoing talk to split Fedora into a well maintained core and layers above that is probably the right general direction. And while 'first' is a good goal, 'works' should perhaps be elevated to a co-equal status. Because if it doesn't work it isn't going to be 'fun.' Perhaps a rule that if packages you maintain have X or more bugs any packages pushed need to close a BZ#. And of the total bug count exceeds a limit nobody can upload a new package that isn't fixing a bug. Making new shiny is always more fun than maintaining, given a choice most people will go for fun and leave the fixing for 'later.'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
