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>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply via email to