Hello, On 2009 m. May 26 d., Tuesday 05:44:25 Armin Berres wrote: > with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we > officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have > no "Bugsqad") and tell people immediately to take this upstream? > I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g. > on d...@l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it > is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever. Who thinks it is rude, (s)he can join our team and do a better job (but they won't). The main difference is that KDE is not a small package and most vocal developers on d...@l.d.o have no idea what it is like to maintain a huge pile of software which you hardly use 1/3rd yourself (I base my opinion on discussion about copyright files). It is either:
1) let user know what is typically going to happen with his/her bug (i.e. nothing). If we continue with tagging 'upstream', we do a pretty good job separating wasted bugs from useful ones and it is already an improvement. 2) forget/ignore bugs like we did before. BTS continues to become useless. IMHO, 1st is a better option. As for presubj, we only have a handful of people reporting upstream bugs to Debian BTS. Once they all get a template reply at least once, it is high probability they won't report such bugs again (or think good about it before reporting). So eventually such presubj's won't be needed. -- Modestas Vainius <geroma...@mailas.com>
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.