FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-09-2009, 04:40 PM
Jan de Groot
 
Default Upstream bug closures

I see a lot of bugs getting closed with "Upstream" lately because
they're not packaging bugs. This is not the way to solve bugs. The only
bugs that should be closed upstream are the ones in binary modules like
flashplugin or nvidia binary drivers. Opensource software can be fixed
or debugged, so we should do that instead of using this bogus closure
option.
 
Old 11-09-2009, 05:27 PM
Andrea Scarpino
 
Default Upstream bug closures

On 09/11/2009, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> I see a lot of bugs getting closed with "Upstream" lately because
> they're not packaging bugs. This is not the way to solve bugs. The only
> bugs that should be closed upstream are the ones in binary modules like
> flashplugin or nvidia binary drivers. Opensource software can be fixed
> or debugged, so we should do that instead of using this bogus closure
> option.
I agree with you here. We should debug or fix software issues (I
closed 30 minutes ago an upstream bug about sonata, but I will
investigate on that), anyway the recent closed bugs are about kernel
and some devices and I do not know how many of us are kernel
developers.

--
Andrea `bash` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
 
Old 11-09-2009, 05:49 PM
Andreas Radke
 
Default Upstream bug closures

Am Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:27:44 +0100
schrieb Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org>:

> On 09/11/2009, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> > I see a lot of bugs getting closed with "Upstream" lately because
> > they're not packaging bugs. This is not the way to solve bugs. The
> > only bugs that should be closed upstream are the ones in binary
> > modules like flashplugin or nvidia binary drivers. Opensource
> > software can be fixed or debugged, so we should do that instead of
> > using this bogus closure option.
> I agree with you here. We should debug or fix software issues (I
> closed 30 minutes ago an upstream bug about sonata, but I will
> investigate on that), anyway the recent closed bugs are about kernel
> and some devices and I do not know how many of us are kernel
> developers.
>

A can't completely agree on that. While it is ok to keep such a bug
open the debugging and fixing should be done in the upstream
bugtracker not in our one.

Our users too often expect the packager (or the one who helped
out) to solve configuration problems, debug code and fix the bug or do
the upstream communication. I can't do this and don't want to do this
for all my packages. It's already hard enough to follow all the mailing
lists to see major changes and where our packaging is affected.

I'm not interested to do upstream work where I don't want to. I'm just a
packager for Arch Linux.

-Andy
 
Old 11-09-2009, 09:01 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default Upstream bug closures

Jan de Groot wrote:

I see a lot of bugs getting closed with "Upstream" lately because
they're not packaging bugs. This is not the way to solve bugs. The only
bugs that should be closed upstream are the ones in binary modules like
flashplugin or nvidia binary drivers. Opensource software can be fixed
or debugged, so we should do that instead of using this bogus closure
option.


I agree if a package is actually broken then the bug report should
remain open with a link to the upstream bug report so that a patch can
be pulled when this is fixed upstream.


But I have used "upstream" to close bugs that I will not leave hanging
around in the bug tracker because they are very minor issues that I know
upstream do not care about (e.g. glibc first day of the week issues). If
there is going to be no upstream patch, then we should not be patching
ourselves.


Allan
 
Old 11-09-2009, 10:20 PM
Paul Mattal
 
Default Upstream bug closures

Andreas Radke wrote:

Am Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:27:44 +0100
schrieb Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org>:


On 09/11/2009, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:

I see a lot of bugs getting closed with "Upstream" lately because
they're not packaging bugs. This is not the way to solve bugs. The
only bugs that should be closed upstream are the ones in binary
modules like flashplugin or nvidia binary drivers. Opensource
software can be fixed or debugged, so we should do that instead of
using this bogus closure option.

I agree with you here. We should debug or fix software issues (I
closed 30 minutes ago an upstream bug about sonata, but I will
investigate on that), anyway the recent closed bugs are about kernel
and some devices and I do not know how many of us are kernel
developers.



A can't completely agree on that. While it is ok to keep such a bug
open the debugging and fixing should be done in the upstream
bugtracker not in our one.

Our users too often expect the packager (or the one who helped
out) to solve configuration problems, debug code and fix the bug or do
the upstream communication. I can't do this and don't want to do this
for all my packages. It's already hard enough to follow all the mailing
lists to see major changes and where our packaging is affected.

I'm not interested to do upstream work where I don't want to. I'm just a
packager for Arch Linux.


I second Andy's opinion. It's not that I don't want to fix bugs
upstream, I just disagree that our bugtracker is a place to track them.
That said, I think it's reasonable for us to try to *report* them
upstream even if they aren't *fixed* by us.


Perhaps we should agree to:

1) Make sure the bug is reported upstream first and,

2) Put a URL in a comment or the closing message pointing to that bug
report upstream before closing with 'Upstream'.


- P
 
Old 11-10-2009, 05:59 AM
"James Rayner"
 
Default Upstream bug closures

> Jan de Groot wrote:
>> I see a lot of bugs getting closed with "Upstream" lately because
>> they're not packaging bugs. This is not the way to solve bugs. The only
>> bugs that should be closed upstream are the ones in binary modules like
>> flashplugin or nvidia binary drivers. Opensource software can be fixed
>> or debugged, so we should do that instead of using this bogus closure
>> option.
>
> I agree if a package is actually broken then the bug report should
> remain open with a link to the upstream bug report so that a patch can
> be pulled when this is fixed upstream.
>

Just an example of when to not close something as upstream. I have a bug
assigned to me, with a patch available, for a project that isn't very
actively maintained. Someone closed the bug as 'upstream'. This, doesn't
really work well, because new releases are unlikely/uncommon, and a patch
is available.

The other case where closing bugs as upstream is bad, is when the bug is
not upstream. I have at least once had a packaging error closed as
upstream.

If anyone is to close a bug as upstream, I suggest it should be the
maintainer of the package as they are most likely to appreciate the
situation best. A broad policy on upstream packages is unlikely to work
due to the variations in each case - rather maintainer intuition is best.

James
 
Old 11-10-2009, 11:28 AM
Paul Mattal
 
Default Upstream bug closures

James Rayner wrote:

Jan de Groot wrote:

I see a lot of bugs getting closed with "Upstream" lately because
they're not packaging bugs. This is not the way to solve bugs. The only
bugs that should be closed upstream are the ones in binary modules like
flashplugin or nvidia binary drivers. Opensource software can be fixed
or debugged, so we should do that instead of using this bogus closure
option.

I agree if a package is actually broken then the bug report should
remain open with a link to the upstream bug report so that a patch can
be pulled when this is fixed upstream.



Just an example of when to not close something as upstream. I have a bug
assigned to me, with a patch available, for a project that isn't very
actively maintained. Someone closed the bug as 'upstream'. This, doesn't
really work well, because new releases are unlikely/uncommon, and a patch
is available.

The other case where closing bugs as upstream is bad, is when the bug is
not upstream. I have at least once had a packaging error closed as
upstream.

If anyone is to close a bug as upstream, I suggest it should be the
maintainer of the package as they are most likely to appreciate the
situation best. A broad policy on upstream packages is unlikely to work
due to the variations in each case - rather maintainer intuition is best.


Here's my take on this one: It's a special case for which we already
have a solution-- for the maintainer to reopen the bug. Assignees get
email when a bug is closed, and it's trivial to return to that page and
reopen the bug. Certainly if the maintainer reopens the bug, nobody
should then then close it as upstream against his/her wishes.


In the meanwhile, our developer and community effort is not spread thin
looking at bugs that perhaps should be closed, while other go untouched.
There's a real cost to leaving a bug open-- someone(s) somewhere will
spend time looking at it rather than applying their effort where it
would be better spent; if we just harnessed that effort alone, we'd have
many fewer bugs.


- P
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org