"Upstream" bug closure
Am Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:42:16 +0200
schrieb Jan de Groot <email@example.com>:
> Recently I've seen several bugs getting closed as "upstream". This is
> not just about bugs in nvidia drivers or bugs in flashplayer, but also
> about bugs in the intel drivers that upstream has patches for. Closing
> this means that we still suffer from that bug until upstream releases
> a new driver 3 months later. This is totally unacceptable for me.
> So, as for "upstream": only close bugs that we can't fix locally. This
> includes closed software, but also bugreports about design choices
> done upstream (for example: the nodisplay=true entry in
> evince.desktop). Closing valid bugs as "upstream" renders our
> bugtracker useless, as we'll get new bugs reported for the same bugs
> in a later stage, or people request re-open anyways because it's
> still not working.
Most devs seem to have an opposite attitude.
When we say we ship vanilla stuff it's valid to close with "upstream"
and leave post release fixes up to the users.
If we see it our task to fix true bugs we can apply patch everything.
That's a question of "Arch way".