Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (172 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse-project] Re: users' perspectives on openSUSE support,backports, our contributions, etc (fwd from user-list)
- From: "Carlos E. R." <carlos.e.r@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:56:17 +0200 (CEST)
- Message-id: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0904031744320.5673@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 2009-04-03 at 16:54 +0200, Vladimir Nadvornik wrote:
...
Provided that taking upstream is the appropriate action. The user does not know if the bug is caused by a suse addition, in which case it causes time lost for both the reported and the upstream folk.
Also consider that the user is not known upstream. He may know nothing about that particular upstream project. The people upstream may all be devs and be unprepared to listen to a user, which is not using the last upstream version: they would ask the user to try the cvs version, which is not a simple task - plus, that version would not have suse patches, which can be determinant.
Telling a user to report upstream should be the last resort. It is certainly daunting for me!
I think it is more appropriate for the maintainer to report upstream with CC to the user to add additional data the people upstream may require, because the maintainer should be accustomed to the requirements upstream and knows what they want or like.
- -- Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAknWMaQACgkQtTMYHG2NR9Uc4wCdEITDeRsqpKISb9XdsxfW+CCm
rzsAnRzKRVI3yxuE5/tGIwwqZ0lHN+kg
=K6h0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 2009-04-03 at 16:54 +0200, Vladimir Nadvornik wrote:
...
I think that if you say in bugzilla tat you are willing to handle the bug
with upstream, the Novell developers will provide you some advices how to do
it, if they knows. It is in their interest.
And it is definitely more productive than just waiting.
Provided that taking upstream is the appropriate action. The user does not know if the bug is caused by a suse addition, in which case it causes time lost for both the reported and the upstream folk.
Also consider that the user is not known upstream. He may know nothing about that particular upstream project. The people upstream may all be devs and be unprepared to listen to a user, which is not using the last upstream version: they would ask the user to try the cvs version, which is not a simple task - plus, that version would not have suse patches, which can be determinant.
Telling a user to report upstream should be the last resort. It is certainly daunting for me!
I think it is more appropriate for the maintainer to report upstream with CC to the user to add additional data the people upstream may require, because the maintainer should be accustomed to the requirements upstream and knows what they want or like.
- -- Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAknWMaQACgkQtTMYHG2NR9Uc4wCdEITDeRsqpKISb9XdsxfW+CCm
rzsAnRzKRVI3yxuE5/tGIwwqZ0lHN+kg
=K6h0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |