On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 > Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage > > > > > team could [...] > > > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection > > > > without a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert > > > > resources away from the existing bug fixing process. > > > And before anyone asks - we've tried to have a triage team several > > > times and it has never really worked so far. It's a hard and > > > relatively > > > > Right, so, this is part of the context for my idea above. There > > *isn't* a triage team, but there *is* a community around Ask Fedora, > > and we could build from that. It wouldn't be the same at all as > > previous efforts to "bugzilla-garden" > > Wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for package maintainers to > decide if a bug was local or upstream, and a button they could push to > automatically send it upstream?
Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the bug using generic installation from sources, and not using the distro package, etc. Also, I don't want to read the full history on the distribution bugtracker, I want to see a concise summary of findings. I want to see an explanation why the bug is an upstream bug, not a distro-specific thing. The person who is forwarding bugs has to all of this by hand, and doing this automatically is infeasible. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
