Re: [gentoo-dev] Better way to direct upstream bugs upstream?

[Kent Fredric]

On 30 August 2015 at 07:53, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote:
>
> Is there a better way of directing reporters to file bugs upstream? Of
> course it's not always clear whether a bug is an ebuild bug or
> something easily patched in Gentoo vs a driver bug that requires an
> upstream developer...


I've always seen it as a case where Gentoo devs stand as a layer of
sanitization between downstream and upstream.

Wherein reporting things upstream is good, but having a downstream
tracker for it is also good, so that when the bug is resolved
upstream,
that the consequences of it are known to be propagated downstream.

And if upstream refuses to fix a bug, Gentoo devs have to choose how
to handle that problem for downstream, sometimes patching around it,
or if that is not simple, or not possible,
to provide blockers where necessary, or produce end-user-visible
warnings about problematic behaviour, etc.

So, even in the case users are prompted to file bugs upstream first,
they should also at minimum report to gentoo when the bug is resolved
upstream
so that the fix can be replicated.

Its also not always abundantly clear to end users where upstream is,
and there are potholes in that process. For instance, in Perl space,
the "Current upstream reporting que" is often RT, but it can be
github, and knowing exactly where the reporting queue *currently* is
something that can't be reliably replicated in metadata.xml, because
it can change on a whim, and sometimes the metadata visible on the
CPAN sources is also wrong, and requires an experienced developer to
chase its tail to work out where it currently is.

And there are some upstreams on CPAN where there is no documented or
stated bug reporting mechanism, and in such cases, the metadata will
encourage you to use the defacto standard, RT, and doing so for some
upstreams will get you automated mails that will possibly make the
reporter recoil in a corner for a bit.

I know and have had moderate success in dealing with upstreams like
that, because I've worked out from listening to people talk how/where
to actaully talk about problems and try to work out how to say things
in a way that will work.

( That is, I'm a much better reporter at reporting faults found in
gentoo to some upstreams than any user could hope to be )

There are also cases where users reporting direct to upstream just
irritates upstream, because its a breakage/potential breakage due to
something gentoo does, and you have the whole hostile "not our
problem, you're on gentoo, you get to keep the pieces" response.

For these reasons, I think its best that those with the most knowledge
of how upstream works, ( us, the developers ) handle reports from end
users and ferry them upstream.

-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL