On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 18:07 +0100, Sven Burmeister wrote:
Am Samstag, 7. Januar 2012, 08:27:02 schrieb Roger Luedecke:
I agree in most areas, but take huge exception to this. Joe User isn't going to know what is upstream. Heck, even I'm not always able to tell when it is upstream or not. Its better they report it, then be told the issue is upstream.
This relies on the wrong assumption that they are told that their issue is upstream. What happens in reality is that those bugs remain unanswered and unfixed in bnc. How is that helping anybody? Reporting upstream increases the chances of getting a response – which does help. Upstream has more KDE developers and those devs know the app they maintain, unlike openSUSE staff who mainly act as packagers.
Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world openSUSE users would report every issue to openSUSE and it would be evaluated and forwarded to the suitable place. But that's not going to happen unless there is a group of people from the openSUSE community who takes that job.
IMHO it is a no-go for openSUSE staff to spend time on bug triaging – simply because their time is too precious (because there are too few). Combine this with >90% bugs reported being upstream issues or issues that whose fix will never be backported and off you go with lots of wasted time that cannot be spent on packaging and fixing downstream issues.
In that case I'd recommend a maintained page on how to report upstream.
How is reporting upstream different from reporting at bnc – given users get a link to bko?
Sven Reporting upstream by default seems counter-intuitive to me. Maybe we just need to make a call to form a bug taskforce of people like me who aren't skilled enough to code but know enough to determine if an issue is an upstream one. We could peruse each one, go "hey this looks like it," check with bko to confirm, then help the reporting user get the report upstream.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kde+owner@opensuse.org