Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (824 mails)

[Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Alberto Passalacqua wrote:
> > > I suppose for the quality of GNOME it would be more helpful if people
> > > would report issues upstream.  At least if the perception is correct
> > > that bugs in openSUSE GNOME are only fixed by pulling new releases
> > > from upstream.
> >
> > That's ok, but it should have been clarified at the beginning of the
> > development stage, I think. Now, 17 days before the release, it is
> > probably too late to get them fixed for 2.20, which will be included in
> > openSUSE 10.3.
> >
> > Moreover, on what basis should we distinguish between GNOME bugs to
> > report upstream, and GNOME bugs to report on bugzilla?
>
> Usually for GCC (which is what I'm working on) I monitor the upstream
> bugzilla for bugs affecting the openSUSE compiler as well as making
> sure that bugs filed on the Novell bugzilla are forwarded upstream.
>
> This is ideally the way it should work for all bugs filed in Novell
> bugzilla if there is upstream development and bugreporting infrastructure.
>
> To what extent this happens for GNOME bugs at the moment I don't know,
> but I am sure that help from the community to improve the situation with
> Novell-bugzilla-only bugreports would be appreciated.  Maybe our
> GNOME people can clarify their policy?

This looks like an other 10.1 fiasco.  I really do not want to see a
repeat of the mistakes.  From what I see in bugzilla there are too many
bugs to really release on schedule.  I think the release needs to be
postponded.

--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@xxxxxxxxx>
ZENEZ   1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx