Christoph Wickert wrote:
> I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
> bugs.
I'll probably reply to more stuff in this thread at a later point. (I've
been noticing this thread for a while, but it's a lot of stuff to read and
probably reply to.) But I'll point out that t
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:31 -0500, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 3/31/2010 14:18, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> >> I'm asking for a sketch of a policy that would do better at accurately
> >> portraying what deficiencies are alive while still all
On 3/31/2010 14:18, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> I'm asking for a sketch of a policy that would do better at accurately
>> portraying what deficiencies are alive while still allowing
>> maintainers to efficiently track which issues they've resol
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> They've modified the bugzilla way too much and thus logged in users
> cannot for example change version or component which causes that
> there is way too much of entries that would need some kind of manual
> work and they lack the manpower to do that.
>[...]
> They do give the
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 16:54 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Bugzilla is OSS. Those with the talent and inclination to do so could try
> lending a hand to existing efforts to improve branch/release handling:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55970
>
> I found that bug quickly by searching
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:09:51PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 14:56 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Till Maas wrote:
> > > Maybe it would be enough to somehow store the information in Bugzilla,
> > > e.g. using a flag for each supported release or some Whiteboard
>
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:30:08 +0300 (EEST), Juha wrote:
> > Why would I want to clone a bz ticket if I did not want to fix the
> > bug in anything other than Rawhide?
>
> Because it's a database of release's bugs, not a todo list?
Is that an answer or a question?
Anyone who wants to search the d
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Juha Tuomala wrote:
> Because it's a database of release's bugs, not a todo list?
Bugzilla has multiple uses. The upstream project goes to some length
describing it as a flexible tool. We in fact use it for multiple
purposes. We use it for package review tickets
On 2010/03/31 21:47 (GMT+0200) Till Maas composed:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:29:26PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It'd be nice to have better handling for this in a future Bugzilla
>> release, but I think it might require considerable internal changes,
>> though I'm not an expert; it doesn
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Why would I want to clone a bz ticket if I did not want to fix the
> bug in anything other than Rawhide?
Because it's a database of release's bugs, not a todo list?
I could be wrong of course, please correct me if I am. Considering
that existing
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:15:30 +0300 (EEST), Juha wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
> > can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
> > and which of those release branches the fix
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 01:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I would suggest proposing those changes you have in mind to dkl, There
> is a internal bugzilla list.
The problem is this isn't an area where I can be terribly constructive;
I can point at the problem but I've nothing to offer in the way
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 14:56 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Maybe it would be enough to somehow store the information in Bugzilla,
> > e.g. using a flag for each supported release or some Whiteboard
> > Keywords, and then implement another Bugzilla Frontend that uses the
>
Till Maas wrote:
> Maybe it would be enough to somehow store the information in Bugzilla,
> e.g. using a flag for each supported release or some Whiteboard
> Keywords, and then implement another Bugzilla Frontend that uses the
> XML-RPC interface of Bugzilla to provide a Frontend that can be better
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:29:26PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It'd be nice to have better handling for this in a future Bugzilla
> release, but I think it might require considerable internal changes,
> though I'm not an expert; it doesn't strike me as something simple to
> patch in.
Maybe it
On 04/01/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> As I said in another mail, Launchpad isn't better in all respects, it's
> not a simple decision. Also, currently Bugzilla is shared with Red Hat
> and hence benefits from management by dkl and other RH staff;
On the other hand, none of the bugzill
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 00:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/01/2010 12:42 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > An alternative is to change the version to Rawhide and then you can use
> > CLOSED RAWHIDE. You should usually have the reporter's agreement before
> > doing this, though.
> >
> > Once
On 04/01/2010 12:42 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> An alternative is to change the version to Rawhide and then you can use
> CLOSED RAWHIDE. You should usually have the reporter's agreement before
> doing this, though.
>
> Once again I note that Launchpad handles this noticeably better than
> Bugzi
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> I'm asking for a sketch of a policy that would do better at accurately
> portraying what deficiencies are alive while still allowing
> maintainers to efficiently track which issues they've resolved to
> their satisfaction.
I've thought abou
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:15 +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
> > can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
> > and which of those release branches the fix is
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 15:02 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >
> > If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
> > close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
>
> Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE? The latter seems t
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> No. I'm asking for you to clarify that you feel clone is appropriate
> for wide spread use for the specific situation I'm commenting on. We
> are very much stuck in a trap of designing our workflow to fit the
> tools we have, instead of designing our t
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>>
>> Are you saying that we should all clone every report that we all would
>> normally close as fixed rawhide?
>
> Are you saying, that everyone facing that bug, should search from every
> relea
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Are you saying that we should all clone every report that we all would
> normally close as fixed rawhide?
Are you saying, that everyone facing that bug, should search from
every release if that has been handled somewhere else other than the
product i
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 07:15:30PM +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
> > can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
> > and which of those release branches t
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Juha Tuomala wrote:
> that's why there is 'clone' functionality. Use it.
Are you saying that we should all clone every report that we all would
normally close as fixed rawhide?
-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we
> can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects
> and which of those release branches the fix is provided.
that's why there is 'clone' functionality. Use it.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> That's just your perception and I don't see any consensus on that. The
> bug is fixed and fixed only in the development branch and this is a
> fairly common thing to do for upstream projects as well as
> distributions. because the fix is to
On 31/03/10 13:34, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 14:20:40 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
close it "WONTFIX" a
On 03/31/2010 06:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> Well this is what I call "cheating the user" and "maintainer lying at
> themselves about their package's state" and why I consider "FIXED
> RAWHIDE" to be non-helpful.
>
> The maintainer did not fix the bug a "reporter" filed, but left it
> unres
On 03/31/2010 02:28 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 05:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
>
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 14:20:40 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
> >> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
> >
> > Why do you advocat
On 03/31/2010 05:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
>>> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
>>
>> Why do you advocate WONTFIX
On 03/31/2010 11:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>
>> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
>> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
>
> Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE?
Because it is how s user perceives
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 13:32:24 Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 31/03/10 12:25, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
> >> On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 03:45 P
On 31/03/10 12:25, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
>> On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> which will make fixing bugs in curren
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:55:58 Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> >>> which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
> >>
> >> Not at all.
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:57:30 Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:50:10 Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > > > which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:50:10 Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > > which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
> >
> > Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the cu
On 31/03/10 11:50, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>>> which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
>>
>> Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
>> or it
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:26:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
>
> Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
> or it is not. Telling users to get it from Rawhide w
On 03/31/2010 03:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>
> which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
>
Not at all. Either the bug is important to fix in the current release
or it is not. Telling users to get it from Rawhide was never a valid
resolution. It is a workaround in some very
On 31/03/10 10:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 02:38 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Then ask the user Could you try "yum --enablerepo=rawhide update foo"
>>
>
>> From Fedora 13 onwards, this repo is not even installed by default
which will make fixing bugs in current even more important.
On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>
> If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
> close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE? The latter seems the
more accurate status considering that I did fix it in Rawhide.
Rahu
On 03/31/2010 10:44 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 07:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>> Then let me put it more bluntly: To a Fedora release's user, both tags
>> are a slap into the face of "reporter" and mean "your bug will not be
>> fixed".
>>
>
> So, I get a minor bug report not wort
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Linuxguy123 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:09 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
>> bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
>> an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set
On 03/31/2010 02:38 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>
> Then ask the user Could you try "yum --enablerepo=rawhide update foo"
>
>From Fedora 13 onwards, this repo is not even installed by default
because users quite often used to enable this accidentally and had to
reinstall their systems.
> I know it
On 31/03/10 09:44, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 07:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>> Then let me put it more bluntly: To a Fedora release's user, both tags
>> are a slap into the face of "reporter" and mean "your bug will not be
>> fixed".
>>
>
> So, I get a minor bug report not worth pus
2010/3/31 Stephen John Smoogen :
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 01:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
As a user, having been hit by a bug, "CLOSED UPSTREAM" is nothing but a
cheap bold
On 03/31/2010 07:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> Then let me put it more bluntly: To a Fedora release's user, both tags
> are a slap into the face of "reporter" and mean "your bug will not be
> fixed".
>
So, I get a minor bug report not worth pushing an update for in the
general releases but
On 31 March 2010 08:28, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> So please - start reporting again - I hope I explained what does "UPSTREAM"
> resolution mean. I can't promise you, we (Fedora, KDE SIG, KDE upstream or
> whoever) fix the bug but...
>
I had a bug some time ago in Okular that I reported and was to
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 04:26:12 Linuxguy123 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:09 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
> > bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
> > an upstream bug report at bugs.
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 01:56:56 Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> > I don't think there's ever an absolute answer to this question.
> > Sometimes it makes more sense for the original reporter to report
> > upstream - in which case the maintainer s
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 01:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> As a user, having been hit by a bug, "CLOSED UPSTREAM" is nothing but a
>>> cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:09 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
> bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
> an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
> the reporter doesn't
On 03/31/2010 01:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> As a user, having been hit by a bug, "CLOSED UPSTREAM" is nothing but a
>> cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
>> a bug having hit a user.
>>
>> In oth
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 15:56 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I don't think there's ever an absolute answer to this question.
> > Sometimes it makes more sense for the original reporter to report
> > upstream - in which case the maintainer sho
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't think there's ever an absolute answer to this question.
> Sometimes it makes more sense for the original reporter to report
> upstream - in which case the maintainer should politely ask them to;
> sometimes it makes more sense for t
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 09:13 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:10 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>
> >
> > But still bugs are fixed by program developers not Fedora developers.
>
> IMO 'Fedora developers' (really, what you mean here are packagers, I
> guess) should strive
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> As a user, having been hit by a bug, "CLOSED UPSTREAM" is nothing but a
> cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
> a bug having hit a user.
>
> In other words: "FIXED UPSTREAM" does not fix anything for
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:11 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> > 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski :
> > > 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk :
> > >> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
> > >> The maintainer should not redirect the bugr
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/29/2010 01:38 PM, Oliver Falk wrote:
> > I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
> Me too.
>
> Except that I would not want to restrict this complaint to Fedora KDE.
>
> There are many other maintainers who
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:35 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Monday 29 March 2010 13:09:46 Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
> > bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
> > an upstream bug report at bugs
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:25:50 -0400, Orcan wrote:
> > What is RH bugzilla for, when not using for bugs in fedora?
>
> For packaging related bugs, or bugs related to Fedora specific
> customizations on packages.
What you call "Fedora specific customizations on packages" may be also the
chosen comb
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Am Montag, den 29.03.2010, 21:05 +0200 schrieb Thomas Spura:
>> Am Montag, den 29.03.2010, 19:47 +0200 schrieb Oliver Falk:
>> > I also agree with "Fine". Pkg maintainers are responsible for their pkgs.
>> > And of course not everybody is able
Am Montag, den 29.03.2010, 21:05 +0200 schrieb Thomas Spura:
> Am Montag, den 29.03.2010, 19:47 +0200 schrieb Oliver Falk:
> > I also agree with "Fine". Pkg maintainers are responsible for their pkgs.
> > And of course not everybody is able to fix any kind of bug...
>
> I also agree with Christop
Am Montag, den 29.03.2010, 19:47 +0200 schrieb Oliver Falk:
> Yeah. Kick out KDE! Use XFCE! Flamewar! *g*
+1 :D
>
> Just jokin'...
>
> I also agree with "Fine". Pkg maintainers are responsible for their pkgs. And
> of course not everybody is able to fix any kind of bug...
I also agree with Ch
Yeah. Kick out KDE! Use XFCE! Flamewar! *g*
Just jokin'...
I also agree with "Fine". Pkg maintainers are responsible for their pkgs. And
of course not everybody is able to fix any kind of bug...
Josephine Tannhäuser schrieb:
>2010/3/29, Michał Piotrowski :
>> I don't see any problem here
2010/3/29 Till Maas :
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:20:57PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> As a user, having been hit by a bug, "CLOSED UPSTREAM" is nothing but a
>> cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
>> a bug having hit a user.
>>
>> In other words: "FIXED U
On Monday 29 March 2010 15:13:56 Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:10 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > But still bugs are fixed by program developers not Fedora developers.
>
> IMO 'Fedora developers' (really, what you mean here are packagers, I
> guess) should strive to become
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:10 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>
> But still bugs are fixed by program developers not Fedora developers.
IMO 'Fedora developers' (really, what you mean here are packagers, I
guess) should strive to become 'program developers' for the packages
they maintain.
Getting
2010/3/29 Josephine Tannhäuser :
> 2010/3/29, Michał Piotrowski :
>> I don't see any problem here if KDE SIG just declare "we don't fix KDE
>> bugs, we just update packages".
> wtf? You can not be serious!
> It's the duty of every maintainer to accept responsibility for his/her
> package(s).
> If t
2010/3/29, Michał Piotrowski :
> I don't see any problem here if KDE SIG just declare "we don't fix KDE
> bugs, we just update packages".
wtf? You can not be serious!
It's the duty of every maintainer to accept responsibility for his/her
package(s).
If there is no responsibility granted for package
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:20:57PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> As a user, having been hit by a bug, "CLOSED UPSTREAM" is nothing but a
> cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
> a bug having hit a user.
>
> In other words: "FIXED UPSTREAM" does not fix anyth
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:16:55 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> 2010/3/29 Jaroslav Reznik :
> > On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> >> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski :
> >> > 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk :
> >> >> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
> >> >> The maintain
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:20:57 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/29/2010 02:11 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> >> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski:
> >>> 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk:
> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
> >
On 03/29/2010 02:11 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski:
>>> 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk:
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstr
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:57:54 Tim Waugh wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:35 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > The problem is - we can't act as man in middle - it's better when
> > original reporter is also upstream reporter = direct communication.
>
> Wait -- *any* Fedora developer could say t
2010/3/29 Jaroslav Reznik :
> On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski :
>> > 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk :
>> >> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
>> >> The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
>> >> bugr
On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski :
> > 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk :
> >> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
> >> The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
> >> bugreporting plattform. I already have
2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski :
> 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk :
>> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
>> The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
>> bugreporting plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream
>> bugzillas because of exactl
On 03/29/2010 01:38 PM, Oliver Falk wrote:
> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
Me too.
Except that I would not want to restrict this complaint to Fedora KDE.
There are many other maintainers who apply a similar strategy and
therefore deserve the same amount of flam
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:35 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> The problem is - we can't act as man in middle - it's better when original
> reporter is also upstream reporter = direct communication.
Wait -- *any* Fedora developer could say this about any bug. I just
don't think it's true, and it as
2010/3/29 Oliver Falk :
> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
> The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
> bugreporting plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream
> bugzillas because of exactly this...
>
I don't see any problem
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:38:52 Oliver Falk wrote:
> I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
> The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream
> bugreporting plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream
> bugzillas because of exactly this...
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream bugreporting
plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream bugzillas because of
exactly this...
-of
Christoph Wickert schrieb:
>I am irritated by the
On Monday 29 March 2010 13:09:46 Christoph Wickert wrote:
> I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
> bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
> an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
> the reporter doesn't re
I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
the reporter doesn't respond, the bug is closed NOTABUG or WONTFIX. But
if the bug has be
88 matches
Mail list logo
