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.

devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to