On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 06:47:52PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I am looking for a set of perl modules which can handle being fed mail
and managing a subscription list in response to that mail while also
allowing for subscriptions/unsubscriptions
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 06:47:52PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I am looking for a set of perl modules which can handle being fed mail
and managing a subscription list in response to that mail while also
allowing for subscriptions/unsubscriptions from an external interface.
Such a thing may not
On Sep 15, 2011, at 06:47 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Can you provide a bit more detail on this?
I am looking for a set of perl modules which can handle being fed mail
and managing a subscription list in response to that mail while also
allowing for
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sep 13, 2011, at 04:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
The main thing that is blocking me from implementing it currently is a
set of perl modules which can handle the hard bit of managing a
mailing list correctly so I don't have to write them from
Hi Stefano (et al.)!
Stefano's post contains a fair assessment of our discussion. However I
would like to state in my own words the basic idea. I'll also provide
a couple of ideas of implementation details.
the problem
--
Often issues that ought to be sent upstream, aren't.
This is
Hi,
status quo
-
*If upstream is aware of the option*, they can choose to be advised of
all bugs or none.
This gives upstream some control, and protects downstream from
accusations of spamming, since upstream has to subscribe to mailings.
But it's all-or-nothing. If
On Sep 13, 2011, at 04:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
The main thing that is blocking me from implementing it currently is a
set of perl modules which can handle the hard bit of managing a
mailing list correctly so I don't have to write them from scratch.
Can you provide a bit more detail on this?
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:06:39PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
even if upstream is interested in bug reports (may be even in all of
them) - it is not that easy to figure out how to subscribe to the bug
mails of a package. We should make it easier for upstreams to subscribe
to bts mails. May be
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:14:33 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Steve suggested a feature that might improve the status quo:
I like the idea.
- enable people to subscribe to bug traffic only if it matches specific
tags (the idea being of forwarding upstream only the traffic for
confirmed
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
Steve suggested a feature that might improve the status quo:
- enable people to subscribe to bug traffic only if it matches specific
tags (the idea being of forwarding upstream only the traffic for
confirmed bugs)
I'd love this, even with
On 09/13/2011 03:14 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
- enable people to subscribe to bug traffic only if it matches specific
tags (the idea being of forwarding upstream only the traffic for
confirmed bugs)
- add a DELAYED-like mechanism where upstream is notified of a bug only
if the
Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org):
After GHM [1], I've head a lengthy discussion with Steve White (Cc:-ed,
GNU maintainer [upstream]) about Debian's procedures for forwarding bugs
upstream.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/09/msg4.html
The conversion touched
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
Steve suggested a feature that might improve the status quo:
- enable people to subscribe to bug traffic only if it matches specific
tags (the idea being of forwarding upstream only the traffic for
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org wrote:
Then, maybe explicitly request upstream - at appropriate forums and in
appropriate polite wording - to help debian team(s) to handle the bug
report stream?
I think upstream has the same problem in some cases: too
Hi, Olaf:
On Thursday 20 January 2011 09:51:27 Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org
wrote:
Then, maybe explicitly request upstream - at appropriate forums and in
appropriate polite wording - to help debian team(s) to handle the bug
Hi
After reading this thread, I've got a strange thought.
So teams maintaining important projects in Debian can't handle the load
caused by bug report stream.
Large presentange of bugs actually as upstream bugs. If so, upstream should
be interested in that information non less than in any
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:27:23 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
nos...@vuorela.dk wrote:
On 2011-01-11, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
I've noticed a trend lately that I am often asked to forward the bugs I
report to the Debian BTS upstream, either by the maintainers or
On 2011-01-13, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
In short: The Debian maintainer is responsible that a bug will be
reported upstream. I don't see a problem if he delegates the actual
work to somebody else who is able and willing to do the job (but please
be nice to the user when asking
[Jesús M. Navarro]
Dear Jesus. Are you seriously saying that
- the kernel mainatiners should step down
- the xorg maintainers should step down
- the mozilla maintainers should step down
- the gnome maintainers should step down
- the kde maintainers should step down
- the xfce
[Jesús M. Navarro]
If any, bugs you (properly) pass to the upstream developer are bugs
that will cost you not a dime of your valuable time from them on.
You didn't read the rest of the thread, did you?
If you understand what I said, good; if you didn't, please, make me
the honour of
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:43:36AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2011-01-13, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
In short: The Debian maintainer is responsible that a bug will be
reported upstream. I don't see a problem if he delegates the actual
work to somebody else who is able and
Hi, Peter:
On Friday 14 January 2011 10:29:57 Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Jesús M. Navarro]
If any, bugs you (properly) pass to the upstream developer are bugs
that will cost you not a dime of your valuable time from them on.
You didn't read the rest of the thread, did you?
Yes I did. And I
As new (sponsored) mantainer i have a few things to say about this thread.
First of all. If i receive a bug report, i do my best to handle it in the
rigth way, i am in contact with upstream author and fortunately i have no
bugs in my package. I personally don't care to forward bugs to upstream.
On 2011-01-14, Iker Salmón San Millán sha...@esdebian.org wrote:
2011/1/14 Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk
Hi Andreas. Would you like to be delegated to help reporting bugs in
packages maintained by Qt/KDE team upstream?
/Sune
I would be glad if i could help you in that (or any) way sune.
Le jeudi 13 janvier 2011 à 11:54 +0100, Olaf van der Spek a écrit :
Instead of stepping down, it might be better to ask for a co-maintainer.
I hereby request a new co-maintainer for the GNOME packages.
--
.''`.
: :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know
`. `' that a
Hi!
Am 13.01.2011 11:54, schrieb Olaf van der Spek:
Now we just need to define what a proper job is.
Instead of stepping down, it might be better to ask for a co-maintainer.
You mean like this http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/help_requested?
Let's have a look:
# chromium-browser [..]
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl
alexan...@schmehl.info wrote:
Hi!
Am 13.01.2011 11:54, schrieb Olaf van der Spek:
Now we just need to define what a proper job is.
Instead of stepping down, it might be better to ask for a co-maintainer.
You mean like this
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:29:58AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
We have written a bit about what's needed here:
http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/bugs.html
A while ago I've reviewed a little bit which kind of contributions
distros are looking for, from people who are willing to get involved
with
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:38:37 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Felipe Sateler writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:56:56 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think it is always reasonable for the maintainer to forward the bug
upstream.
But what I think is bad is _demanding_
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:27:12 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2011-01-13, Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org wrote:
We can't demand or require anyone to do anything. Yet we expect
I think this is mostly wrong.
We can demand or require people to step down. And we should if we don't
think
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:29:58AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
We have written a bit about what's needed here:
http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/bugs.html
A while ago I've reviewed a little bit which kind of
John Goerzen dijo [Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 05:08:26PM -0600]:
So let's run out your scenario a bit: upstream asks user to test with
upstream version X. Bug isn't reproducible by maintainer. Does the
maintainer now have to provide user with binaries? This gets
complicated when packaging
On 01/13/2011 06:19 PM, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
Hi, Sune:
On Thursday 13 January 2011 00:12:06 Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2011-01-12, Jesús M. Navarrojesus.nava...@undominio.net wrote:
I have considered to take this one step further. Close bugs reported in
Debian BTS with a severity of important
Hi, John:
On Friday 14 January 2011 16:49:18 John Goerzen wrote:
[...]
I think it is a huge waste of time to expect DDs to go through 400 bugs
just to see if the problem is still there. Just close them outright.
Why the package(s) got 400 bugs to start with? If the problem is there, then
Jesús M. Navarro jesus.nava...@undominio.net writes:
Why the package(s) got 400 bugs to start with? If the problem is there,
then it's there. If somebody opened the bug then there was a bug at
least on his opinion which nobody challenged. If there was a bug, then
it need to be supposed
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:59:40AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I really like Russ Allbery's sane words about this topic.
To argue that is *not* to require or demand that anyone do any work, nor
to strip anyone of their role. I wish I knew how to avert the
On 2011-01-13, Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org wrote:
We can't demand or require anyone to do anything. Yet we expect
I think this is mostly wrong.
We can demand or require people to step down. And we should if we don't
think they do a proper job.
Now we just need to define what a proper
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote:
On 2011-01-13, Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org wrote:
We can't demand or require anyone to do anything. Yet we expect
I think this is mostly wrong.
We can demand or require people to step down. And we should if we
* Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk [110113 01:54]:
We can't demand or require anyone to do anything. Yet we expect
maintainers to answer bug reports, provide packages, etc. The fact that
you can't force anyone to do anything doesn't mean you can't say that
some behavior is
Bernhard R. Link writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
The maintainer should of course assess where their work is best invested
and act accordingly.
But a package where bug reports to Debian are not properly handled or
users are required[1] to report them elsewhere is definitely not fully
Ben Finney writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
But if a maintainer tells me please go and talk to them yourself or
even please stop filing these kind of upstream bugs in Debian - you
know how to do it yourself upstream and I have enough
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Remember: there is no shortage of bug reports.
That's unfortunately true. Why is it that bug squashing parties only
happen a short time before release while it appears that the rest of
the time the issue is
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 02:03:07PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Remember: there is no shortage of bug reports.
That's unfortunately true. Why is it that bug squashing parties only
happen a short time before release while it appears that the rest of
the time the issue is ignored?
Please,
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 02:03:07PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Remember: there is no shortage of bug reports.
That's unfortunately true. Why is it that bug squashing parties only
happen a short time before release
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
Currently, the debian Qt/KDE team has around 800 open, non-forwarded
bugs reported against their packages. I would guess that maybe 20 of
them is packaging issues. But we can't find them.
The rest of the bugs (780 open-non forwarded (and 300 forwarded))
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Ben Finney wrote:
But if they do refuse, then to what extent is that person
accomplishing the maintainer role?
To the greatest extent they can, which is what all of us do. I don't
believe any maintainer is going to stand in the way of anyone who
wants to help triage their
Don Armstrong writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
I personally would love to see patches to the BTS to enable forwarding
these kinds of bug reports to upstreams more easily and integrate
everything tightly with the BTS. Unfortunately, I am perpetually short
of time to implement them myself
Olaf van der Spek writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
The point is focus on solving bugs shouldn't be limited to BSPs and
the end of the release cycle.
No, Stefano's point was that if you want something done, you should go
and do it rather than whining here that it isn't being done.
Ian
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
The point is focus on solving bugs shouldn't be limited to BSPs and
the end of the release cycle.
It never is restricted to just those times; it just becomes more
important as we get closer and closer to release.
Don Armstrong
--
This isn't life
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
Ubuntu has a team (Bug Squad[1]) that tries to triage incoming bug
reports, including forwarding them upstream when applicable.
I don't know how successful this is, but if it has success, then maybe
we could try to recruit volunteers
Zitat von Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
Currently, the debian Qt/KDE team has around 800 open, non-forwarded
bugs reported against their packages. I would guess that maybe 20 of
them is packaging issues. But we can't find them.
The rest of the bugs
On 01/12/2011 09:35 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Ben Finney dijo [Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 04:01:46PM +1100]:
(...)
I'm adding zero value here. Zero. It is a huge and frustrating waste
of my time.
Not in my view. I appreciate the Debian package maintainer acting in the
interest of “lower the barrier
Olaf van der Spek olafvds...@gmail.com writes:
That's unfortunately true. Why is it that bug squashing parties only
happen a short time before release while it appears that the rest of the
time the issue is ignored?
This didn't happen during this release cycle, at least from my
perspective.
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org writes:
On 01/12/2011 09:35 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
You are clearly adding value [… enumeration of many ways the
maintainer adds significant value by relaying bug report discussions
…]
Those are some valid points, probably more valid for many packages
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 02:46:35PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Anecdote: while I was employed by Canonical I had to dissuade some of
my colleagues from implementing and deploying, without consent from
Debian, a feature in Launchpad that would automatically file
corresponding bug reports in the
On 01/12/2011 05:59 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Rather, I'm arguing that the maintainer role, as a mediator and
interface between upstream and the Debian user, entails a whole lot of
different tasks, and being a mediator in the discussion between
upstream-who-doesn't-care-about-Debian-specifically
On 01/12/2011 12:52 AM, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
I understand that maintainers' time is limited and that forwarding bugs
is not an enjoyable task. But I also understand that having a BTS
account for the upstream BTS of each of the 2405 packages I have
installed on my laptop (not to mention
Hi, Sune:
On Thursday 13 January 2011 00:12:06 Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2011-01-12, Jesús M. Navarro jesus.nava...@undominio.net wrote:
I have considered to take this one step further. Close bugs reported in
Debian BTS with a severity of important or less that is a bug that
should primarily
Hi, John:
On Thursday 13 January 2011 19:25:59 John Goerzen wrote:
On 01/12/2011 09:35 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
[...]
But still, let's say that a Debian developer has X minutes to spend on
Debian a day.
Let's be true: it's not that a Debian developer has X minutes to spend but
that a Debian
Hi, Andreas:
On Thursday 13 January 2011 09:19:35 Andreas Tille wrote:
[...]
In short: The Debian maintainer is responsible that a bug will be
reported upstream. I don't see a problem if he delegates the actual
work to somebody else who is able and willing to do the job (but please
be nice
Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu writes:
In short: The Debian maintainer is responsible that a bug will be
reported upstream. I don't see a problem if he delegates the actual
work to somebody else who is able and willing to do the job (but
please be nice to the user when asking for this kind of
On Mi, 12 ian 11, 10:55:34, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Drake Wilson dr...@begriffli.ch wrote:
Which upstream bug trackers, if any, would make the above not work?
Sourceforge and probably Gforge/FusionForge trackers.
The only tracker I'm aware of which would work
Le mardi 11 janvier 2011 à 23:54 +, brian m. carlson a écrit :
I've noticed a trend lately that I am often asked to forward the bugs I
report to the Debian BTS upstream, either by the maintainers or
automatically by a bug script. I believe, and I continue to believe,
that maintainers
* Drake Wilson dr...@begriffli.ch [2011-01-12 08:09] wrote:
Quoth Paul Wise p...@debian.org, on 2011-01-12 10:55:34 +0800:
[among other responses]
Sourceforge and probably Gforge/FusionForge trackers.
The only tracker I'm aware of which would work is Trac, some instances
of which allow
Drake Wilson, 2011-01-11 20:19:34 -0700 :
[...]
This doesn't leave much in the way of good options:
- Having the user report bugs twice
[...]
- Having the maintainer be the reporter of record for upstream
[...]
- Having the maintainer forward the bug report but make the user the
On 2011-01-11, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
I've noticed a trend lately that I am often asked to forward the bugs I
report to the Debian BTS upstream, either by the maintainers or
automatically by a bug script. I believe, and I continue to believe,
I have considered to
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:15:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I think it is perfectly fine for a user to submit a bug report to
the Debian BTS first. They may not always be equipped to know what
is a Debian and what is an upstream bug. And I also think it ought
to be perfectly valid for the
Ben Finney dijo [Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 04:01:46PM +1100]:
(...)
I'm adding zero value here. Zero. It is a huge and frustrating waste
of my time.
Not in my view. I appreciate the Debian package maintainer acting in the
interest of “lower the barrier for each Debian user of this package to
John Goerzen writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
I'm going to have a slightly different viewpoint on this.
I agree with John, basically.
I'm adding zero value here. Zero. [...]
Some people have replied suggesting scenarios where the Debian
maintainer is adding something. That's fine
brian m. carlson writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:15:41PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I think it is perfectly fine for a user to submit a bug report to
the Debian BTS first. They may not always be equipped to know what
is a Debian and what is an upstream bug
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 02:56:35PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
[...]
Also, if the BTS won't CC me when someone responds
to the bug (even with an account), there is zero chance of me reporting
the bug upstream, since I have better things to do with my life than
constantly checking a slew of
Hi, Sune:
On Wednesday 12 January 2011 14:27:23 Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2011-01-11, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
I've noticed a trend lately that I am often asked to forward the bugs I
report to the Debian BTS upstream, either by the maintainers or
automatically by a
On 2011-01-12, Jesús M. Navarro jesus.nava...@undominio.net wrote:
I have considered to take this one step further. Close bugs reported in
Debian BTS with a severity of important or less that is a bug that
should primarily be fixed upstream.
Will this mean that the problem will somehow
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I think it is always reasonable for the maintainer to forward the bug
upstream.
But what I think is bad is _demanding_ or _requiring_ the maintainer
to forward the bug upstream. If they don't want to do that for
whatever reason then
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote:
Will this mean that the problem will somehow disappear from Debian? Because
if it's a problem detected within Debian it's my feeling that it will have to
be tracked within Debian till the problem is in Debian no more.
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Indeed, the Debian project can't demand or require any work of anyone. I
think it's perfectly acceptable for any such volunteer to refuse to do
the work.
But if they do refuse, then to what extent is that person accomplishing
the maintainer
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
What I think many people are saying in this thread is that, among all
the things that a Debian package maintainer could do to improve the
package and user experience of those using the package, being a
go-between for Debian bug reporters and upstream is
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:56:56 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think it is always reasonable for the maintainer to forward the bug
upstream.
But what I think is bad is _demanding_ or _requiring_ the maintainer to
forward the bug upstream. If they don't want to do that for whatever
reason then
Olaf van der Spek writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote:
Will this mean that the problem will somehow disappear from
Debian? Because if it's a problem detected within Debian it's my
feeling that it will have
Felipe Sateler writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:56:56 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think it is always reasonable for the maintainer to forward the bug
upstream.
But what I think is bad is _demanding_ or _requiring_ the maintainer to
forward the bug upstream
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
But in this case I don't think we should be expecting maintainers to
necessarily shepherd bug reports upstream. I don't think a maintainer
who fails to do so is failing in their job as maintainer.
The
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
As I understand it we are not in danger of having infrastructure
capacity problems at the BTS due to these bugs, and the maintainers
who think they are a very low priority don't want to see them can
easily arrange that with the pretty
Olaf van der Spek writes (Re: Forwarding bugs upstream):
Maybe some tools (PTS) should warn about bugs that are older than X
days and are still unclassified?
That's just a way to make more noise. They show up in the BTS
searches already.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 23:54 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
I've noticed a trend lately that I am often asked to forward the bugs I
report to the Debian BTS upstream, either by the maintainers or
automatically by a bug script. I believe, and I continue to believe,
that maintainers should
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk (12/01/2011):
If a bug is not readily reproducible or isolatable, it may be
necessary to pass it over to an upstream maintainer who will know
what further questions to ask. But they need to send those
questions to the user, not to the Debian maintainer. In
brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.net writes:
I've noticed a trend lately that I am often asked to forward the bugs
I report to the Debian BTS upstream, either by the maintainers or
automatically by a bug script. I believe, and I continue to believe,
that maintainers should forward
Quoth Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org, on 2011-01-12 01:59:03 +0100:
If a bug is not readily reproducible or isolatable, it may be
necessary to pass it over to an upstream maintainer who will know
what further questions to ask. But they need to send those
questions to the user, not to the
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 18:29 -0700, Drake Wilson wrote:
Quoth Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org, on 2011-01-12 01:59:03 +0100:
If a bug is not readily reproducible or isolatable, it may be
necessary to pass it over to an upstream maintainer who will know
what further questions to ask. But
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Drake Wilson dr...@begriffli.ch wrote:
Which upstream bug trackers, if any, would make the above not work?
Sourceforge and probably Gforge/FusionForge trackers.
The only tracker I'm aware of which would work is Trac, some instances
of which allow anyone to put
(Woopsy, forgot to send to the list the first time.)
Quoth Paul Wise p...@debian.org, on 2011-01-12 10:55:34 +0800:
[among other responses]
Sourceforge and probably Gforge/FusionForge trackers.
The only tracker I'm aware of which would work is Trac, some instances
of which allow anyone to
On 01/11/2011 05:54 PM, brian m. carlson wrote:
I've noticed a trend lately that I am often asked to forward the bugs I
report to the Debian BTS upstream, either by the maintainers or
automatically by a bug script. I believe, and I continue to believe,
that maintainers should forward bugs
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org writes:
Now, here's how it proceeds if I have to forward a bug upstream for
Bacula, which uses Mantis. Creating a Mantis account takes 30
seconds
I don't know Brian's position on this, but “time to create an account
with arbitrary upstream BTS” isn't the
On 12 January 2011 14:15, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
8) This continues.
For what it is worth, I generally will ask the submitter to use the
upstream bug tracking system if there is any dispute or problems with
the bug report. Sure, this isn't ideal, but seems to me to be a
I understand that maintainers' time is limited and that forwarding bugs
is not an enjoyable task. But I also understand that having a BTS
account for the upstream BTS of each of the 2405 packages I have
installed on my laptop (not to mention my other machines) is simply not
practical. I
94 matches
Mail list logo
