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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:09 AM
Christoph Wickert
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

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 been reported upstream, the Fedora bug gets closed
UPSTREAM. Ether way, the bug gets closed, no matter if it was actually
fixed or not.

IMHO filing bugs upstream is a maintainers duty. We are doing the same
in Xfce or I do the same with all my packages. The only exception I make
are feature requests, because I cannot support a request that I don't
understand or that I am not convinced of. The use of a feature should be
discussed upstream with the developers because they are in no way
specific to the distribution, but bugs that affect Fedora need to be
tracked in Fedora.

The wiki says:
> Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner
> * [...]
> * If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself
> because they deal with intricacies of the source code which
> you don't fully understand, then you still need to address
> these bugs. It can be helpful to work with the upstream
> maintainer of the code, obtain help from more code-oriented
> people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
> patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you
> have done so that the reporter knows what it happening and
> what to expect. It is recommended that non-coder packagers
> should find co-maintainers who are familiar with the
> programming language used by their package(s), and can help
> with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Deal_with_repo rted_bugs_in_a_timely_manner

The Fedora KDE maintainers and bugzappers already have a KDE bugzilla
account, while most of our users don't. Thus it is easier for them to
file the bug than it is for the user. The maintainer has to act as a
proxy between the reporter and the developer.

By closing down the bugs, our bugzilla is effectively rendered useless
because there is no way of searching for bugs that affect our KDE
packages. Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for blindly closing bug
reports no matter if they are fixed or not!

I'd like the KDE SIG and their bugzappers to reconsider their policy:
1. Forward bugs to the upstream developers
2. Leave bugs open until they are fixed upstream and in Fedora

Regards,
Christoph

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:35 AM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

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 respond, the bug is closed NOTABUG or WONTFIX. But
> if the bug has been reported upstream, the Fedora bug gets closed
> UPSTREAM. Ether way, the bug gets closed, no matter if it was actually
> fixed or not.

<Citation from Bugzilla help>
UPSTREAM
This resolution should not be used for RHEL bugs. Otherwise, bugs closed
with this resolution are filed in the upstream bugs tracker or reported to the
upstream mailing list. This typically includes almost all feature requests and
enhancements, and most bugs that we don't consider release showstoppers.
(moving a bugs upstream typically increases the chance that someone will have
time to look at it, and often the upstream developer or bug owner even works
at Red Hat - moving things upstream simply allows us to keep everything in one
place, and work better with open source community developers outside of Red
Hat. We only keep bug open on redhat.com to track our immediate short-term
TODO items, or issues with our patches/packaging, or because the upstream
package in question has poor bug tracking. The main focus of development for
most packages is the upstream community, even when Red Hat is a big
contributor to the community.) Some upstream bug trackers:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org http://bugs.kde.org http://bugzilla.mozilla.org.
<End of citation>

All upstream closed bugs are still tracked by KDE SIG members! It's just moved
to the right place - upstream bugzilla!!! We are on CC of upstreamed bugs, we
are active in upstream bugzilla and we backport fixed issues back to Fedora as
soon as possible even the fixed bug is scheduled to be included in next KDE
release.

>
> IMHO filing bugs upstream is a maintainers duty. We are doing the same
> in Xfce or I do the same with all my packages. The only exception I make
> are feature requests, because I cannot support a request that I don't
> understand or that I am not convinced of. The use of a feature should be
> discussed upstream with the developers because they are in no way
> specific to the distribution, but bugs that affect Fedora need to be
> tracked in Fedora.

The problem is - we can't act as man in middle - it's better when original
reporter is also upstream reporter = direct communication. And as I said - we
never let reported alone in upstream BZ jungle! Sometimes even bug bounces
from Fedora to KDE and back to Fedora - bug is of course reopened. If reporter
doesn't want to fill upstream bug - we do it (for example he doesn't want to
create upstream bz account). It's all about communication - we are open source
community!

> The wiki says:
> > Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner
> >
> > * [...]
> > * If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself
> >
> > because they deal with intricacies of the source code which
> > you don't fully understand, then you still need to address
> > these bugs. It can be helpful to work with the upstream
> > maintainer of the code, obtain help from more code-oriented
> > people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
> > patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you
> > have done so that the reporter knows what it happening and
> > what to expect. It is recommended that non-coder packagers
> > should find co-maintainers who are familiar with the
> > programming language used by their package(s), and can help
> > with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.

Of course we try to fix bugs but as you can imagine - KDE is really veeeeeeery
big projects - it's not possible to understand everything for normal human
being (except Kevin Kofler ;-). We work closely with upstream - for top
severity bugs we try even much more - you can check it on kde lists, bugzilla
etc. Lot of KDE & Qt security bug fixes are coming from our team.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Deal_wit
> h_reported_bugs_in_a_timely_manner
>
> The Fedora KDE maintainers and bugzappers already have a KDE bugzilla
> account, while most of our users don't. Thus it is easier for them to
> file the bug than it is for the user. The maintainer has to act as a
> proxy between the reporter and the developer.
>
> By closing down the bugs, our bugzilla is effectively rendered useless
> because there is no way of searching for bugs that affect our KDE
> packages. Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for blindly closing bug
> reports no matter if they are fixed or not!
>
> I'd like the KDE SIG and their bugzappers to reconsider their policy:
> 1. Forward bugs to the upstream developers
> 2. Leave bugs open until they are fixed upstream and in Fedora

As I cited - it's only one correct bug resolution -> CLOSED UPSTREAM. This bug
is of course tracked on Fedora side (even CLOSED ones, even upstream ones)!!!

That's our bugs workflow. I think it works very well - and always you have lot
of ways how to contact us and solve the bug individually - IRC #fedora-kde
channel, kde@lists.fpo, emails...

Jaroslav

> Regards,
> Christoph

--
Jaroslav ┼śezn├*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:38 AM
Oliver Falk
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

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 <christoph.wickert@googlemail.com> schrieb:

>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 been reported upstream, the Fedora bug gets closed
>UPSTREAM. Ether way, the bug gets closed, no matter if it was actually
>fixed or not.
>
>IMHO filing bugs upstream is a maintainers duty. We are doing the same
>in Xfce or I do the same with all my packages. The only exception I make
>are feature requests, because I cannot support a request that I don't
>understand or that I am not convinced of. The use of a feature should be
>discussed upstream with the developers because they are in no way
>specific to the distribution, but bugs that affect Fedora need to be
>tracked in Fedora.
>
>The wiki says:
>> Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner
>> * [...]
>> * If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself
>> because they deal with intricacies of the source code which
>> you don't fully understand, then you still need to address
>> these bugs. It can be helpful to work with the upstream
>> maintainer of the code, obtain help from more code-oriented
>> people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
>> patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you
>> have done so that the reporter knows what it happening and
>> what to expect. It is recommended that non-coder packagers
>> should find co-maintainers who are familiar with the
>> programming language used by their package(s), and can help
>> with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.
>
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Deal_with_repo rted_bugs_in_a_timely_manner
>
>The Fedora KDE maintainers and bugzappers already have a KDE bugzilla
>account, while most of our users don't. Thus it is easier for them to
>file the bug than it is for the user. The maintainer has to act as a
>proxy between the reporter and the developer.
>
>By closing down the bugs, our bugzilla is effectively rendered useless
>because there is no way of searching for bugs that affect our KDE
>packages. Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for blindly closing bug
>reports no matter if they are fixed or not!
>
>I'd like the KDE SIG and their bugzappers to reconsider their policy:
> 1. Forward bugs to the upstream developers
> 2. Leave bugs open until they are fixed upstream and in Fedora
>
>Regards,
>Christoph
>
>--
>devel mailing list
>devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:42 AM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

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...

Me too. Maybe Open ID support in common Bugzilla instances should work. And I
said it - if you don't want to report it upstream (even it's upstream bug and
belongs to upstream Bugzilla) just asked some KDE SIG members to take care. We
will never say no (except rude replies). I think transparency is what we need,
not bouncing bugs around - it takes time both reporter and rh/kde assignee and
leads to slower bug resolution...

Jaroslav

> -of
>
> Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@googlemail.com> schrieb:
> >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 been reported upstream, the Fedora bug gets closed
> >UPSTREAM. Ether way, the bug gets closed, no matter if it was actually
> >fixed or not.
> >
> >IMHO filing bugs upstream is a maintainers duty. We are doing the same
> >in Xfce or I do the same with all my packages. The only exception I make
> >are feature requests, because I cannot support a request that I don't
> >understand or that I am not convinced of. The use of a feature should be
> >discussed upstream with the developers because they are in no way
> >specific to the distribution, but bugs that affect Fedora need to be
> >tracked in Fedora.
> >
> >The wiki says:
> >> Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner
> >>
> >> * [...]
> >> * If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself
> >>
> >> because they deal with intricacies of the source code which
> >> you don't fully understand, then you still need to address
> >> these bugs. It can be helpful to work with the upstream
> >> maintainer of the code, obtain help from more code-oriented
> >> people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
> >> patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you
> >> have done so that the reporter knows what it happening and
> >> what to expect. It is recommended that non-coder packagers
> >> should find co-maintainers who are familiar with the
> >> programming language used by their package(s), and can help
> >> with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.
> >
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Deal_wi
> >th_reported_bugs_in_a_timely_manner
> >
> >The Fedora KDE maintainers and bugzappers already have a KDE bugzilla
> >account, while most of our users don't. Thus it is easier for them to
> >file the bug than it is for the user. The maintainer has to act as a
> >proxy between the reporter and the developer.
> >
> >By closing down the bugs, our bugzilla is effectively rendered useless
> >because there is no way of searching for bugs that affect our KDE
> >packages. Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for blindly closing bug
> >reports no matter if they are fixed or not!
> >
> >I'd like the KDE SIG and their bugzappers to reconsider their policy:
> > 1. Forward bugs to the upstream developers
> > 2. Leave bugs open until they are fixed upstream and in Fedora
> >
> >Regards,
> >Christoph

--
Jaroslav ┼śezn├*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:46 AM
Michał Piotrowski
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

2010/3/29 Oliver Falk <oliver@linux-kernel.at>:
> 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 here if KDE SIG just declare "we don't fix KDE
bugs, we just update packages".

They are not KDE developers, so they don't know how to fix these bugs.

Regards,
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:57 AM
Tim Waugh
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

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 assumes that the person reporting the bug
knows as much about the intricacies of source code and programming as
the developers do.

If I were were to put the onus of finding the right upstream project and
reporting bugs there onto people reporting printing problems, none of
those bugs would get fixed at all.

The user experiencing a bug *already* has to be pretty determined in
order to get as far as filing a bug in Bugzilla.

> If reporter
> doesn't want to fill upstream bug - we do it (for example he doesn't want to
> create upstream bz account).

Seems to me this ought to be opt-in not opt-out -- we should be
reporting the bugs upstream, and then the original reporter gets to add
themselves to the upstream bug's CC field if they like.

Tim.
*/

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 11:59 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

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 flaming.

> 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...
This still would require
a) "reporter" to be interested in getting involved upstream
b) "reporter" to be "technically able" to get involved upstream.

In many cases, one or both considerations do not apply.

Ralf


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 12:03 PM
Yaakov Nemoy
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
> 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk <oliver@linux-kernel.at>:
>> 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 here if KDE SIG just declare "we don't fix KDE
> bugs, we just update packages".
>
> They are not KDE developers, so they don't know how to fix these bugs.

This response regardless, as a downstream user of a package, if i
report a bug, it's nice to know if it's going to be fixed in a current
release or not. Until the upstream bugfix lands in a package
downstream, downstream should leave the bug open. The bug can be used
to track an update from bodhi too, and even suggest to the user that
he download a package out of testing to see that it is fixed. Without
the maintainers acting as the man in the middle, a potential bug
reporter not only has to open an account with the KDE bug tracker, but
then he might be asked to download source code, build it on his own,
and do a number of other hassles to help upstream out. The maintainers
can assist this by helping with test builds and so on. It's their
responsibility, otherwise to track the issue upstream, regardless
whether they are active developers.

-Yaakov
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 12:11 PM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
> > 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk <oliver@linux-kernel.at>:
> >> 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 here if KDE SIG just declare "we don't fix KDE
> > bugs, we just update packages".
> >
> > They are not KDE developers, so they don't know how to fix these bugs.
>
> This response regardless, as a downstream user of a package, if i
> report a bug, it's nice to know if it's going to be fixed in a current
> release or not. Until the upstream bugfix lands in a package
> downstream, downstream should leave the bug open.

Current Bugzilla policy says CLOSED as UPSTREAM is correct resolution. It's
just terminology - I would prefer another one - like just UPSTREAM status, or
ON_DEV UPSTREAM or something similar. CLOSED UPSTREAM does not mean that
nobody cares! It's still tracked!

> The bug can be used
> to track an update from bodhi too

It's used to track in Bodhi.

> and even suggest to the user that
> he download a package out of testing to see that it is fixed. Without
> the maintainers acting as the man in the middle, a potential bug
> reporter not only has to open an account with the KDE bug tracker, but
> then he might be asked to download source code, build it on his own,
> and do a number of other hassles to help upstream out.
> The maintainers
> can assist this by helping with test builds and so on. It's their
> responsibility, otherwise to track the issue upstream, regardless
> whether they are active developers.
>

Usually we do this, we provide testing packages etc. But not only on Fedora
side but both sides.

Jaroslav

> -Yaakov

--
Jaroslav ┼śezn├*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-29-2010, 12:16 PM
Yaakov Nemoy
 
Default Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

2010/3/29 Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@redhat.com>:
> On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
>> > 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk <oliver@linux-kernel.at>:
>> >> 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 here if KDE SIG just declare "we don't fix KDE
>> > bugs, we just update packages".
>> >
>> > They are not KDE developers, so they don't know how to fix these bugs.
>>
>> This response regardless, as a downstream user of a package, if i
>> report a bug, it's nice to know if it's going to be fixed in a current
>> release or not. Until the upstream bugfix lands in a package
>> downstream, downstream should leave the bug open.
>
> Current Bugzilla policy says CLOSED as UPSTREAM is correct resolution. It's
> just terminology - I would prefer another one - like just UPSTREAM status, or
> ON_DEV UPSTREAM or something similar. CLOSED UPSTREAM does not mean that
> nobody cares! It's still tracked!

Sure, it's good to know that it's tracked. Maybe we should think about
modifying the policy to make this more transparent. Perhaps a 'ON HOLD
- UPSTREAM'.

>> The bug can be used
>> to track an update from bodhi too
>
> It's used to track in Bodhi.
>
>> and even suggest to the user that
>> he download a package out of testing to see that it is fixed. Without
>> the maintainers acting as the man in the middle, a potential bug
>> reporter not only has to open an account with the KDE bug tracker, but
>> then he might be asked to download source code, build it on his own,
>> and do a number of other hassles to help upstream out.
>> The maintainers
>> can assist this by helping with test builds and so on. It's their
>> responsibility, otherwise to track the issue upstream, regardless
>> whether they are active developers.
>>
>
> Usually we do this, we provide testing packages etc. But not only on Fedora
> side but both sides.

Ah cool. Still, it's something that is general to theoretically all
maintainers. I don't want to mandate this, because ultimately
maintainers are volunteers in the end.


-Yaakov
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:01 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org