Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 02:14:15PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers > not universally applied"): > > To me, the core message of the current text is that you should ensure > > that bug reports which

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied"): > Yes, but that does not mean we should make it permitted by the rules > to slack in that \u201Cduty\u201D. I find this rhetoric, that overwhelmed maintainers who are

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 18:42 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Short answer (slightly drunk and short on time), more later: > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > In some packages this will not be possible at least for some bug > > reports.  You've seen the poor quality and

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Short answer (slightly drunk and short on time), more later: On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > In some packages this will not be possible at least for some bug > reports. You've seen the poor quality and hard-to-follow-up bug […] Yes, but that does not mean we should make it permitted

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied"): > As long as it\u2019s a \u201Cshould\u201D in the same sense as > \u201Cshould fix bugs in their packages\u201D, and package > maintainers keep an eye on users\u2019 bu

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > I think it is usually better if the Debian maintainer can do this. > I would like to encourage maintainers do do it. But I really don't > think we can make this mandatory. Uhm… it’s been mandatory the last couple of years. > It's all very well to say

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Moritz Muehlenhoff
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 02:14:15PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers > not universally applied"): > > To me, the core message of the current text is that you should ensure > > that bug reports which

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied"): > Now that I write it again, there\u2019s another point: > > \u2022 the package maintainers not being involved in the discussion > (dangerous if e.g. upstream s

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Wouter Verhelst writes ("Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied"): > To me, the core message of the current text is that you should ensure > that bug reports which are not Debian-specific end up with upstream, > *somehow*, whether by the mai

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied"): > On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > That's not the current/best practice for a number of packages, > > either because of the sheer volume of bug report

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Hi Wouter, > I agree that it's perfectly fine for a maintainer to say "this is an > upstream bug, please report it upstream", which the current text > doesn't allow for. In theory, I could agree to that, were it not for a number of points I outlined earlier: • the variety of upstream bug

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Hello Moritz, > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:29:52PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > I’m trying to be constructive here, but in the end, I still > > think that this was something package maintainers (at least > > DDs) have read beforehand and signed up for, so there’s no > > room to complain now,

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 09:05:04PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Source: developers-reference > Severity: normal > > "3.1.4. Coordination with upstream developers" says > > "You have to forward these bug reports to the upstream developers so that they > can be fixed in a future upstream

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-07 Thread Moritz Muehlenhoff
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:29:52PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > I’m trying to be constructive here, but in the end, I still > think that this was something package maintainers (at least > DDs) have read beforehand and signed up for, so there’s no > room to complain now, Good. Please subscribe

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-06 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > "You have to forward these bug reports to the upstream developers so that they > can be fixed in a future upstream release." > > That's not the current/best practice for a number of packages, either because > of the sheer volume of bug reports/size

Bug#908155: Coordination with upstream developers not universally applied

2018-09-06 Thread Moritz Muehlenhoff
Source: developers-reference Severity: normal "3.1.4. Coordination with upstream developers" says "You have to forward these bug reports to the upstream developers so that they can be fixed in a future upstream release." That's not the current/best practice for a number of packages, either