| 1 |
In April I closed out ~100 bugs assigned to x11@ that the X11 team |
| 2 |
never had any realistic ability to fix ourselves (see most bugs about |
| 3 |
x11-drivers/ati-drivers). Most of these were fleeting driver bugs |
| 4 |
affecting a particular piece of hardware and a (often now old) |
| 5 |
particular version of the driver -- now long obsolete but still |
| 6 |
cluttering our bugzilla and making triaging actually solvable bugs |
| 7 |
more difficult. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
We often direct reporters to file bugs upstream (being a middle-man |
| 10 |
for a driver bug is extremely inefficient), but even when that happens |
| 11 |
the Gentoo bug remains open, often long after the upstream bug is |
| 12 |
fixed and closed. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Worse, users sometimes file bugs in our bugzilla that we don't have |
| 15 |
time to respond to for a while during which time they're waiting on |
| 16 |
people without the ability to help them. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Is there a better way of directing reporters to file bugs upstream? Of |
| 19 |
course it's not always clear whether a bug is an ebuild bug or |
| 20 |
something easily patched in Gentoo vs a driver bug that requires an |
| 21 |
upstream developer... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Maybe some text on https://bugs.gentoo.org/enter_bug.cgi asking users |
| 24 |
to direct bug reports upstream under some to-be-decided-upon |
| 25 |
circumstances? |
Archives