Re: Should I make a tracking bug in fedora for problem reported upstream?
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 09:43 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > I have reported https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41862 for an > issue with 3.1 kernels crashing, typically on the order of hours after > booting. Based on some names in the traceback, I suspect this is MD raid > or luks related. > > I reported this upstream, since that seems to be a better place to get > attention for development kernel bugs, than Fedora's tracker. However, > if this should be considered a beta blocker, then I should probably also > make a Fedora bug entry so that it can be tracked as a blocker. > > However it doesn't seem to meet the explicit requirements for a beta blocker. > The only category it might fit in is a high severity bug. But if it really > limited to systems using MD raid or luks encryption, I am not sure if > it would meet that standard. > > If it isn't a blocker, I'd rather not enter a duplicate bug in Fedora since > that would just seem to be a waste of resources. (But maybe QA would rather > see the bug entry anyway.) You pretty much answered all your own questions. =) If you want to propose it as a Fedora blocker formally then yes, you should create a downstream bug. Since we have a while to go before Beta, if I were you, I'd wait a bit longer until it's better understood and then bring it downstream if appropriate, but there'd be nothing terrible about doing it now. The kernel team is also generally pretty responsive in #fedora-kernel, so you could simply flag up the upstream bug there and ask if anyone wants to take a look and see how worried we should be. As a general rule, only raise a bug in Fedora if it's needed for something Fedora-specific: for the blocker process, or if you want to request an upstream fix be brought downstream faster than it usually would be (which varies from package to package of course). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
RE: Should I make a tracking bug in fedora for problem reported upstream?
> From: br...@wolff.to > To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org > Subject: Should I make a tracking bug in fedora for problem reported upstream? > > I have reported https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41862 for an > issue with 3.1 kernels crashing, typically on the order of hours after > booting. Based on some names in the traceback, I suspect this is MD raid > or luks related. > > I reported this upstream, since that seems to be a better place to get > attention for development kernel bugs, than Fedora's tracker. However, > if this should be considered a beta blocker, then I should probably also > make a Fedora bug entry so that it can be tracked as a blocker. > > However it doesn't seem to meet the explicit requirements for a beta blocker. > The only category it might fit in is a high severity bug. But if it really > limited to systems using MD raid or luks encryption, I am not sure if > it would meet that standard. > > If it isn't a blocker, I'd rather not enter a duplicate bug in Fedora since > that would just seem to be a waste of resources. (But maybe QA would rather > see the bug entry anyway.) I would stick in on b.rh.com and mark it as a blocker, since it does sort of block Beta criteria 5. John. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Should I make a tracking bug in fedora for problem reported upstream?
Dne 28.8.2011 16:43, Bruno Wolff III napsal(a): > I reported this upstream, since that seems to be a better place to get > attention for development kernel bugs, than Fedora's tracker. However, > if this should be considered a beta blocker, then I should probably also > make a Fedora bug entry so that it can be tracked as a blocker. This could be the reason for making a Fedora bug, but I would probably if I were you (but I don't it is required) discuss this on #fedora-qa on Freenode. People there usually have much better opinions about blockers and similar stuff. Matěj -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Should I make a tracking bug in fedora for problem reported upstream?
I have reported https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41862 for an issue with 3.1 kernels crashing, typically on the order of hours after booting. Based on some names in the traceback, I suspect this is MD raid or luks related. I reported this upstream, since that seems to be a better place to get attention for development kernel bugs, than Fedora's tracker. However, if this should be considered a beta blocker, then I should probably also make a Fedora bug entry so that it can be tracked as a blocker. However it doesn't seem to meet the explicit requirements for a beta blocker. The only category it might fit in is a high severity bug. But if it really limited to systems using MD raid or luks encryption, I am not sure if it would meet that standard. If it isn't a blocker, I'd rather not enter a duplicate bug in Fedora since that would just seem to be a waste of resources. (But maybe QA would rather see the bug entry anyway.) -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
