On Tue, 26 May 09 10:00, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> 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
> 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
> good about it before reporting). So eventually such presubj's won't be needed.
In case anything wonders what the status is:
We started to tag (mostly) all incoming upstream bugs as those and were begging
the submitter to resubmit upstream.
Some of the bugs have been resubmitted upstream, so this can be
considered to be a success. No one really complained and when there were
complaints people understood our position after a further explanation.