On 22 December 2010 15:53, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Sridhar Dhanapalan > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In summary, I strongly urge testers to fully report their findings in >> the appropriate issues tracking system. In doing so, you make sure >> that the developers see your findings (thus making your testing >> worthwhile) and can easily act upon them. > >> Examples of tracking systems to submit to: >> >> OLPC: http://dev.laptop.org/ >> Sugar Labs: http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ >> OLPC Australia: http://dev.laptop.org.au/ > > What is the intended scope of the OLPC Australia tracking system?
In essence, we use our tracking system in the same way as OLPC and Sugar Labs use theirs. OLPC and Sugar Labs are downstream of projects such as Fedora and GNOME, using them as a base to develop their own software. Bugs found in an OLPC build are reported to OLPC, who can then (if appropriate) make a report to the relevant upstream. For example, someone might find a bug in Sugar on an XO. The correct place to report it initially is dev.laptop.org, not bugs.sugarlabs.org or bugzilla.redhat.com (used by Fedora). This is because the problem may have been introduced in the OLPC version. Likewise, we at OLPC Australia have been pursuing our own development. In some cases, this builds upon existing work. If someone finds a bug in one of our -au XO builds, it should be reported to us to examine first. We refer it upstream if we determine that it hasn't been caused by us. We also have developments that are not tied to an upstream, such as the Sugar activities that we are creating. What we are *not* doing is duplicating the jobs of other issues trackers. Cheers, Sridhar _______________________________________________ Testing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/testing
