On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:57:54PM +0000, Joey Hess wrote: > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > No I read them, and I'm interested in how you intend to do so > > _automatically_. Because if it isn't automatic, then we're back to the > > current situation _plus_ filing bug in our own BTS. I fail to see where > > the revolution is. > > > > And I believe the "automation" of sending bugs upstream unsolvable, > > because I tried to solve it, and failed. Of course, when upstream is > > Mailing-list driven this is easy. But when your upstream is KDE (or > > glibc, or ..) that uses a bugzilla with subprojects, components and so > > on, before even _thinking_ of filing a bug, you have to file half a > > dozen of fields to document where your patch should go. And _this_ is > > painful, and _this_ is why so few bugs are forwarded upstream. And then > > not so long time ago you even had to follow the upstream bug because > > nothing did that for you (and here bts-link was a big improvement for > > many teams I think). > > You're describing a situation where upstream is difficult or impossible > to communicate with. I can't solve that, nor can anyone except upstream.
Except that once again, upstream that would benefit from our system the most are those kind of upstreams, with very large sources, huge user base, huge bugs lists, and massive amounts of patches floating around. > So in this case it's equivilant, but the cases that seem more > interesting and likely to yield benefits are the ones where > communication with upstream is possible. Well all isn't equivalent. Some solutions add more burden on the maintainer, which is the "expensive" resource here. IOW it doesn't scale well. Or I missed something. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgp4xznlDrdDw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
