Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for package maintainers to decide if a bug was local or upstream, and a button they could push to automatically send it upstream? I really like Stan's idea. The root of this problem lies in the

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 19/09/16 20:27, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 09/18/2016 10:16 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote: > >> Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH >> Bugzilla to be able to create as >> well as sync bugs. > > Between which issue trackers is that supported? Currently,

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/18/2016 10:16 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote: Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH Bugzilla to be able to create as well as sync bugs. Between which issue trackers is that supported? JBG ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 08:16 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote: > Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH > Bugzilla to be able to create as > well as sync bugs. > > We've shared the code with upstream to see if they like our approach > so far. > > Fedora is our biggest user

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 17/09/16 03:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 >> Matthew Miller wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> So, what if we

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 17/09/16 03:27, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 17:19 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it >> without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what >> *upstream* version of the software was used,

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:27:30 -0500 Michael Catanzaro wrote: [snip] > I don't care so much about all that (it's more important for systemd > due to distro integration), I just want the bug reporter CCed on the > upstream bug, and able to respond when I ask a question. Yeah,

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:19:24 + Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it > without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what > *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the >

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 17:19 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it > without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what > *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the > bug using generic

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > >

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage > > > > team

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers >> > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...]

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage > > > > team

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers > > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...] > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without > > a

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 23:09 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...] > > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without > a

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:46:53PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:44:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if > > _someone_

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:21:44AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 14 September 2016 at 10:44, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote> > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 05:46 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: What I'd_really_ love to see is a layer separating bug trackers from end users. That layer already exist in the form of irc forum and askbot does it not? ( someone from the support sub-community can provide information how successful these are )

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream

On 09/14/2016 05:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> - A package triggering too many BZs. RC> IMO, this should question the package's quality. A package with a million users is going to get more bugs than a package with ten regardless of

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:44:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if > _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something > with them.

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 07:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: My impression is, in many cases, it's ego, which prevents to acknowledge they need "to divert". I'm not sure what you mean by divert. This is a Dinglish "politically correct" phrase to describe "to partially give up/step down", "make room to

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream

On 09/14/2016 07:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> - A package triggering too many BZs. RC> IMO, this should question the package's quality. A package with a million users is going to get more bugs than a package with ten regardless of

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:01:14 -0400 Josh Boyer wrote: > Quite simply, there are valid cases where a maintainer, or a group of > maintainers, cannot scale to the number of bugs a package can > generate. The larger and more complex a package, the more likely that > is.

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream

> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> - A package triggering too many BZs. RC> IMO, this should question the package's quality. A package with a million users is going to get more bugs than a package with ten regardless of the package quality. I have a feeling that a

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/14/2016 06:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius >> wrote: > > >>> In this areas I primarily see 2 groups: >>> - Maintainers, who are overloaded

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 06:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: In this areas I primarily see 2 groups: - Maintainers, who are overloaded with BZs. IMO, this primarily is an ego problem and partially a project management/leadership

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 02:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something with them. This responsibility

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/14/2016 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>> >>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: >> >> >> RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH >> RC> Bugzilla,

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what RC> users are using. I disagree in general;

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 14 September 2016 at 10:44, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: > > RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH > RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what > RC>

Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what RC> users are using. I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount