Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: x11 <x11@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Better way to direct upstream bugs upstream?
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:54:24
Message-Id: CAEdQ38F0y76kHiaZnQBYBmBVGcmekr1t7X3ZKgmJ6jec9w-tXg@mail.gmail.com
In April I closed out ~100 bugs assigned to x11@ that the X11 team
never had any realistic ability to fix ourselves (see most bugs about
x11-drivers/ati-drivers). Most of these were fleeting driver bugs
affecting a particular piece of hardware and a (often now old)
particular version of the driver -- now long obsolete but still
cluttering our bugzilla and making triaging actually solvable bugs
more difficult.

We often direct reporters to file bugs upstream (being a middle-man
for a driver bug is extremely inefficient), but even when that happens
the Gentoo bug remains open, often long after the upstream bug is
fixed and closed.

Worse, users sometimes file bugs in our bugzilla that we don't have
time to respond to for a while during which time they're waiting on
people without the ability to help them.

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...

Maybe some text on https://bugs.gentoo.org/enter_bug.cgi asking users
to direct bug reports upstream under some to-be-decided-upon
circumstances?

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Better way to direct upstream bugs upstream? Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
[gentoo-dev] Re: Better way to direct upstream bugs upstream? "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@g.o>