The particular bug I came upon is upstream[1], but could certainly apply within Fedora. I see a few directions that can be taken.
1. The hard line approach - CLOSE it and cite the bug writing Principles page[2], specifically, "One bug per report". (noticeably *absent* from bugs.kde.org)
2. Something nicer and, therefore, takes longer... Thank you for taking the time, blah, blah. In it's current form, this report is unusable, so... (Item 1) is a dup of (link) (Item 2) has been opened as (link to new bz #) ,,, (Item N) such and such.
3. One or another variation of 2.
Thoughts?
jerry
[1] http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171832 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=bug-writing.html
Jerry Amundson wrote:
The particular bug I came upon is upstream[1], but could certainly apply within Fedora. I see a few directions that can be taken.
- The hard line approach - CLOSE it and cite the bug writing
Principles page[2], specifically, "One bug per report". (noticeably *absent* from bugs.kde.org)
- Something nicer and, therefore, takes longer...
Thank you for taking the time, blah, blah. In it's current form, this report is unusable, so... (Item 1) is a dup of (link) (Item 2) has been opened as (link to new bz #) ,,, (Item N) such and such.
- One or another variation of 2.
Thoughts?
jerry
[1] http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171832 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=bug-writing.html
Not quite following you here is this for a report that has been filled in bugzilla or a report that you found in a upstream bugzilla?
Usually bugs get closed with a link to the report upstream if they have been reported upstream. ( I think that is if the upstream maintainer is not within the Fedora community )
And if i'm not mistaken I think the KDE maintainers that are within the Fedora community wants bugs against KDE in Fedora rather to be filed upstream instead of Red Hat's bugzilla.
Kevin can correct me if i'm mistaken here..
JBG
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
And if i'm not mistaken I think the KDE maintainers that are within the Fedora community wants bugs against KDE in Fedora rather to be filed upstream instead of Red Hat's bugzilla.
Right, KDE bugs should usually be reported to bugs.kde.org. They should get fixed upstream. Still, filing at bugzilla.redhat.com too can't hurt, worst case we'll just close it as UPSTREAM, but in some cases we'll backport fixes or even try to fix it ourselves if the problem is important enough and easy enough to fix. We just don't have to manpower to fix any and all KDE bugs by ourselves, not to mention that they should get fixed upstream so other distributions benefit from the fixes as well.
Kevin Kofler
On Friday 02 January 2009 11:30:21 am Kevin Kofler wrote:
Right, KDE bugs should usually be reported to bugs.kde.org. They should get fixed upstream. Still, filing at bugzilla.redhat.com too can't hurt, worst case we'll just close it as UPSTREAM, but in some cases we'll backport fixes or even try to fix it ourselves if the problem is important enough and easy enough to fix.
What if someone opened the bug in Fedora's bz because they wanted to know when the fix actually landed in Fedora? I was about to write a new topic on Fedora devel asking if we should do away with closing bugs UPSTREAM because it does not allow one to find out when something was finally fixed in Fedora vs upstream. This happened to me 2 weeks ago. I now have a bug closed and no way of knowing if and when its actually fixed in a stable release.
-Steve
Steve Grubb sgrubb@redhat.com wrote:
On Friday 02 January 2009 11:30:21 am Kevin Kofler wrote:
Right, KDE bugs should usually be reported to bugs.kde.org. They should get fixed upstream. Still, filing at bugzilla.redhat.com too can't hurt, worst case we'll just close it as UPSTREAM, but in some cases we'll backport fixes or even try to fix it ourselves if the problem is important enough and easy enough to fix.
What if someone opened the bug in Fedora's bz because they wanted to know when the fix actually landed in Fedora? I was about to write a new topic on Fedora devel asking if we should do away with closing bugs UPSTREAM because it does not allow one to find out when something was finally fixed in Fedora vs upstream. This happened to me 2 weeks ago. I now have a bug closed and no way of knowing if and when its actually fixed in a stable release.
There is no guarantee that each and every bug filed will be closed by the packager. I've had to close more than one bug I opened as it got fixed in the course of updating.
Kevin Kofler wrote:
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
And if i'm not mistaken I think the KDE maintainers that are within the Fedora community wants bugs against KDE in Fedora rather to be filed upstream instead of Red Hat's bugzilla.
Right, KDE bugs should usually be reported to bugs.kde.org. They should get fixed upstream. Still, filing at bugzilla.redhat.com too can't hurt, worst case we'll just close it as UPSTREAM, but in some cases we'll backport fixes or even try to fix it ourselves if the problem is important enough and easy enough to fix. We just don't have to manpower to fix any and all KDE bugs by ourselves, not to mention that they should get fixed upstream so other distributions benefit from the fixes as well.
Kevin Kofler
If you took my source package and built it for inclusion in your distro, I don't think I would be very interested in helping your users. The first question I'd need answered, is "What is the difference between the version you (the user) got from your distributor and what I ship?"
For any significant project, I'm sure I would have entirely enough bugs of my own to sort out without worrying about bugs you might have introduced.
In the above, don't assume "I" means "John Summerfield" or that you means "Kevin Kofler."
Possibly the most famous incident of a distributor shipping much modified code (from a non-release at that) is the gcc project where RH took the current snapshot and distributed it as gcc 2.96. While RH took responsibility for its actions, it caused problems for the gcc crowd who got a lot of bug reports for problems not of their making, and for RH who got heaps from others, notably MYSQL, for years alleging problems in gcc 2.96 long after they were fixed.
I would say that, if you get KDE from the Fedora project, then it's right and proper to report them using the Fedora bug reporting facilities. If you get KDE from the KDS folk, Fedora doesn't want to know about it.
Fedora may well report the bug upstream, but that's not a reason to close it. Closing it implies there's no further action required because it's fixed (or diagnosed as not a real bug), and the fact of it remaining open allows people to see that it is so, add to the report and maybe see what's happening upstream.
On 1/2/09, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@hi.is wrote:
Not quite following you here is this for a report that has been filled in bugzilla or a report that you found in a upstream bugzilla?
Um, yes, my core question is in regard to Fedora bugzilla, especially the BugZapper Stock Responses. I pointed out a bug upstream only because it happened to have >1 issues in it.
jerry
Jerry Amundson wrote:
- The hard line approach - CLOSE it and cite the bug writing
Principles page[2], specifically, "One bug per report". (noticeably *absent* from bugs.kde.org)
I'd suggest doing that. I'm really fed up of "everything but the kitchen sink" type bug reports. Those are always a PITA to work with as a developer because you never know when to close them.
IMHO, "Please file n separate bug reports for your n separate issues. Thanks in advance!" is enough of a form letter.
Kevin Kofler
On 1/2/09, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Jerry Amundson wrote:
- The hard line approach - CLOSE it and cite the bug writing
Principles page[2], specifically, "One bug per report". (noticeably *absent* from bugs.kde.org)
I'd suggest doing that. I'm really fed up of "everything but the kitchen sink" type bug reports. Those are always a PITA to work with as a developer because you never know when to close them.
IMHO, "Please file n separate bug reports for your n separate issues. Thanks in advance!" is enough of a form letter.
I've added a section with a smoothed out version of that. [1] Thanks for leading the way with my upstream example. [2] :-)
jerry
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/StockBugzillaResponses#Two_or_more... [2] http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171832
-
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" -
Horst H. von Brand -
Jerry Amundson -
John Summerfield -
Kevin Kofler -
Steve Grubb