It's clear that Sage, unlike most other projects, makes extensive use of software not written by Sage developers. As such, when bugs are found in that software, they should ideally be reported upstream.
I would suggest a pull-down on the track where one could select from 1) N/A - Not an upstream bug. 2) Not yet reported upstream, but should be. 3) Reported upstream. 4) Fixed upstream In case #2, the reason for it not being reported should be given in the trac ticket, such as: * I will do it within the next week. * I don't have a clue who to report this too. In the case of #3, the trac ticket should give further details of how the bug was reported. Such as * URL for an online bug database * Email of individual developer mailed. * Email address of upstream developer list, and URL to join. * Whether the bug has been acknowledged by the developers. In case #4, the trac ticket should state if the fix is in * A stable upstream release * CVS * Alpha/beta release or however else the bug is known about. Implementing this (or something similar) would have several advantages. 1) It would encourage developers to report bugs upstream in the first place, as nobody would like to leave their ticket as "#2 - Not yet reported upstream, but should be." 2) It would allow a search of those that should be reported. 3) It would allow one to search for .spkg files where updating the version should solve the issue. It seems to me, a lot of bugs reported in Sage trac tickets never actually get reported upstream. This might help in that matter. Comments ?? Dave --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
