Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (341 mails)

[Rafa Grimán <rafagriman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi :)


El Wednesday 04 February 2009, Rob OpenSuSE escribió:
> 2009/2/4 Rafa Grim�n <rafagriman@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > What I mean is that say I post a bug upstream and another user posts the
> > same bug at Novell's bugzilla.
>
> The discussion about smolt started when an openSUSE user was unhappy
> to be referred reporting a bug upstream.


I know, and (once again) I jumped in because I misunderstood the answer he got 
so I SYNed an apology and got ACKed saying it's OK.


> In general it does make 
> sense to open a bug in Bugzilla, and to accept polite requests to file
> upstream.


I know. That's why I'm saying that if the user has 1 interface, it's much 
easier for him. And yes, if he receives an answer saying: "File upstream", 
that's OK. I never said we shouldn't do that.

In the part you quote, what I'm talking about is two openSUSE/SLES/SLED users 
see the same bug:
        - one user files it upstream
        - the other user files it in Novell's bugzilla

Then you've got two times the same bug. If we "train" the user to report bugs 
first in Novell's bugzilla, then it's much easier.


> How can you verify or test a proposed fix, if the bug does not affect
> your system?  Filing a bug, frequently you are asked to provide
> information, logs, or run tests and provide output or describe the
> effects.


I know you have to do follow ups. I'm just saying that if the user has 1 
interface, we're making his life easier. That's what we want, right? At least 
that's what I want because that will bring more users :)


> So what is generally needed is work from a number of independent projects :
>
>    - Cooperation of End User with bug, info & test runs
>    - Triage & extra information by openSUSE member (community or
> Novell/SuSE employee)
>    - Cooperation of Upstream, who ideally approve a patch, and
> include fix into codebase for future releases


I don't remember saying the contrary. Once again: my point is one interface to 
make user's life easier, not what gets done once the bug is filed.


> Restricting reporting to 1 interface, is superficially convenient, but
> is inherently inefficient.


Not necessarily. How many KDE users are there? Imagine all those KDE users 
filing bugs to KDE's bugzilla: it would be madness for the KDE project. On 
the other hand. Imagine all those KDE users filing bugs to each of their 
distros: the distro decides which bugs are up stream and which are distro 
specific. I'm saying the distros should act as a funnel/filter.

For example, how does an end user know whether it's a distro specific bug or 
whether it's a package specific bug? The easiest thing for the end user is to 
file the bug in Novell's bugzilla and from there start all the process to fix 
the bug.


> Commercial software companies, don't want their users to talk to
> anyone else, who might provide the customer with information.  This is
> an open system, no secrets, not a closed one.


I haven't been talking about keeping things secret. I'm talking about 
_organizing_ the bug submission process. Where did you get the idea that I 
want to keep things secret? Why did you write the above paragraph? I'm sorry, 
I don't understand why you wrote it and what it has to do with what I'm 
saying (making life easier for the user).

   Rafa

-- 
"We cannot treat computers as Humans. Computers need love."

rgriman@xxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx