On 06/09/2015 09:44 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 09.06.15 21:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
We need to do proper QA to properly support and backup our downstream
consumers ( distributions, embedded and otherwise) and that means tagging
bugs by distributions, vendors, releases.
I'd be very careful with starting to track downstream issues
upstream. I explicitly want to avoid that. It's a good thing that the
bug kingdoms there are seperate, and that we aren't flooded with all
kinds of downstream bugs all the time upstream. The "pre-filtering"
done by downstream is absolutely important to keep things managable
for us upstream.
If anything I would be more strict here, and systematically refuse bug
reports upstream for any package version older than the newest two,
unless escalated by the downstream maintainers.
Agreed
In the long run I was thinking about a built in reporting tool that
would report only the information we need, directly to our issue tracker
( anonymously without the need for an login account, what I dubbed
"drive by reporting" ) and label bugs based on information from
os-release that would be sent with that report and minimize any
communication from upstream to downstream bug trackers since it wastes
time ( #1228909 on bz.rh.com is prime example of unwanted, unneeded
distraction from downstream, what I call contributors time waster which
is why I stepped in and try to close that report to no prevail. ).
I expected downstream package maintainers to have their own account and
be part of this community and participating with us ( as is to be
expected of downstream maintainers ) anyway first we need the
infrastructure for that in place so I was keeping that information to
myself ( as I'm doing with few other ideas ) until we have had sorted
that out.
JBG
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
