Hi, I recently filed an Ubuntu bug making a sync request:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/689025 I got what looks like a cut-and-paste response pointing me to: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess It reads: Please update your bug so it follows the requirements for sync requests: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess Please be aware that the Natty would automatically sync the version from Debian Squeeze if there were no Ubuntu specific changes in the package. The most important thing is therefore to check whether these changes are still needed. I have nothing against cut-and-paste responses per se, they are a useful way to save developer time in common situations. However, I have two problems with this one: 1. Unlike many other excellent automatic responses, this one does not thank me for my bug report. It implies that for anything to be done for my bug report, I have to go and follow the instructions on the page pointed to. But why should I? I have reported the bug, I have not indicated that I am anything other than an ordinary user, why on earth would you think I have the time or indeed the skills needed to triage my own bug report against the criteria on this page? As it happens, I have both the time and the skills, but I still choose not to work on Ubuntu itself; I choose to spend my effort upstream (for example, I helped to make some improvements to sudo recently), and downstream (in this case, reporting this bug). In summary, this automatic response looks rather ungrateful. 2. I went and had a look at the policy page on sync requests, and as the response to my bug report indicates, it mentions more than once that to justify a sync request, it should be proven that Ubuntu-specific changes are no longer needed in the new Debian version of the package. But the trouble is, there are situations such as the present in which they are still needed, and for a good reason: there are differences in policy between Ubuntu and Debian. So, the changes will need to be forward-ported. I can see nothing explicit in the page about this case, though common sense tells me that the Ubuntu-specific patches would need to be triaged. The implications from this are unfortunate: a. We will do nothing unless you prove in detail that the package can be synced to Debian. This implication could be removed by simply making the automatic response to a sync request a little more friendly: "Thank you for your sync request. We'll try to get around to it, but you can help us immensely by following the procedure on this page: ..." b. When there are Ubuntu changes to a Debian package that need to remain in a new version, we won't bother syncing the new version. This is clearly false: there are many packages which are updated, even though Ubuntu-specific changes need to be forward-ported. This implication can be removed by adding instructions to the sync request wiki page on what to do in this circumstance. I hope these suggestions are useful: after getting the initial reply to my bug report I was cross (because my bug report was apparently not valued) and hopeless (because it looked as though unless I did lots of work this package would not be synced), whereas I do not think this is the true picture. Also, I have had no other contact from any Ubuntu developer, even though I posted again to the bug report to explain why I had asked for the package sync, and therefore explain the value of my report. (There is clearly some value in users reporting why it is a good idea to sync a certain package, as it shows both reasons and demand for the newer version, which helps Ubuntu developers to choose which packages to spend time syncing, when the syncing is not automatic.) Overall, so far I feel I have largely wasted my time on this report, which is dispiriting. I feel moved to join and write to ubuntu-devel-discuss because this is not the first time I've had such an experience. I have four main problems with Ubuntu bug reports: 1. They get mechanised. I get cut and paste instructions (not a bad thing in itself), and if I don't do exactly what they say, nothing progresses (which is bad, because it reduces the interaction to a mechanical, programmed one). Often, there is a better way to proceed than simply to follow a standard process. 2. They get overwhelmed by clueless users. I don't know how to fix this, sorry. I suspect it is a necessary price of Ubuntu's greater friendliness to newbies relative to Debian, and of course newbies have to be encouraged, educated, and turned into the next wave of experts. I have this problem less with Debian, and indeed, when it is the right thing to do, I report bugs direct to the Debian BTS. 3. Trying to answer the question "Do I report a bug to Ubuntu, Debian or upstream?" itself costs a lot of time (especially when the answer is that I should report it in two places). I may be missing ways to streamline the process, but it seems it could still use further work. Perhaps there is scope for a single guided reporting tool which itself can report to any of the three places. At the moment I have manually to choose whether I start with launchpad, reportbug, or some upstream site where I probably have to register yet another account. 4. A single bug report is addressed by different developers, not all of whom take the trouble to understand the whole picture. Hence, they make incorrect decisions (often for example closing a bug when it's not really fixed). I find this happens much less on Debian where most packages typically have a single maintainer. I suspect this is a downside of the MOTU system. The danger here is that I end up respecting Ubuntu devs rather less than Debian developers, because they seem (because of their greater breadth) less clueful. Also, rather a lot of time is probably wasted as a result of poor decisions. I hope that the greater flexibility of the MOTU system makes up for it, but I'm not sure. (The converse problem on Debian is overloaded maintainers who never get around to replying to a bug report, but I don't think that happens any more often than on Ubuntu.) Don't think I'm net-negative on Ubuntu: I am profoundly grateful that it builds on Debian rather than starting from scratch, and I think it's a brave decision, given the bureaucratic difficulties that necessarily involves; not to mention the additional difficulties that come from a far greater focus on the user (which is the why I use Ubuntu and not Debian). I hope the above remarks have some use. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
