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

[Peter Stuge]

<upstream hat on>

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

This is the last thing I want. Did you play the whisper game as a kid?

I want direct contact with the user who can reproduce the problem in
the upstream bug tracker, anything else is absolutely suboptimal and
will easily cause the bug to never get fixed at all.


> 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.

I think a clever downstream would make sure to integrate with the
upstream, by e.g. subscribing to all ticket resolution changes.


> 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.

I think this duplication is utterly dysfunctional, as long as
upstream does not refuse to fix the bug.


> Its also not always abundantly clear to end users where upstream is,
> and there are potholes in that process.

Sure. This is an area where maintainers probably already know
everything, and where they can help users by documenting it.
(I use HOMEPAGE a lot. Would BUGTRACKER make sense?)


> 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

In theory it can, but my experience is that in practice it doesn't
change very often.


> 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.

Sounds like a task that the ebuild maintainer can solve?


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

Cool! And thank you for doing that! But it's not always neccessary,
and it shouldn't be required when it isn't.


> 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.

Do not use this as a blanket policy. It is unhelpful for upstreams
who understand Gentoo and appreciate that users are building from
source.

Maybe they are the exception, but don't punish the minority of good
guys just because most are bad.


Thanks

//Peter