On 2010-Jun-24 13:54:24 +0100, "Dr. David Kirkby" <[email protected]> wrote: >Here's a suggestion, which I think could be useful. > >If a reviewer sees that a bug on trac is an upstream bug, that they are >required >to see evidence that this has been reported upstream before the fix gets a >positive review. > >Hence > >AUTHOR >MUST state he has reported the bug upstream, and if so how. Sometimes that >will >be an email, but the ticket needs to say who it was emailed to and what date.
In general, I think this is a good idea but I think that 'must' is a bit strong and there should be scope for exceptions. One issue that needs to be considered is that some projects seems to treat bug reports as an affront and make it as difficult as possible to report bugs. How much effort should a trac bug author be forced to go to to report a bug? When should a fix be excluded from Sage solely because the upstream package authors want to be difficult? >REVIEWER >MUST NOT GIVE POSITIVE REVIEW unless he/she is satisfied a bug has reported >upstream when appropriate. Unless the author can demonstrate a good reason why he has not done so. >4) If it becomes clear that we don't know who to report the bug to, that would >need fixing in SPKG.txt Does anyone know how many spkg's fall into this category? -- Peter Jeremy
pgpH1YKRSINMr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
