Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead

[Christian Robottom Reis]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:07:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bjorn Tillenius writes ("Re: Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead"):
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 04:45:50PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Other times I would prefer not to [report upstream myself]
> ...
> > If it's indeed a bug, I think it's fair to let the bug be open in
> > Ubuntu. Even though it's such a bug that it won't be resolved in an
> > Ubuntu context, it still exists in Ubuntu. Would maybe the following
> > work?
> 
> By this reasoning, most upstream bugs should also be bugs open in
> Ubuntu.

That is correct -- but you should probably only track bugs in Ubuntu
that are relevant to your end-users or developer team.

> >     * Tell the reporter that he should report the bug upstream, and
> >       then add the link to the Ubuntu bug report
> > 
> >     * Mark the bug as 'needs info' until the upstream bug link has been
> >       added
> 
> This is no good; the bug is liable to end up in this state
> indefinitely.  If I decide it's not worth doing anything particular
> about the bug for Ubuntu, and explain why, then the submitter might
> well agree with me and decide to do nothing either - not even hunting
> for the bug upstream.

You make a good point, however. In upstream bugtrackers like
bugzilla.mozilla.org, bugs are almost never closed because nobody is
interested in working on them -- instead, they just stay open but
unassigned.

We need to consider whether this model is acceptable or not for us.
At a glance I'd say it is, and that we just need to find a way of
prioritizing our bugs based on milestones, assignment and/or priority;
this however requires both a good UI and a good process behind it to
make sure we keep the bugs updated.
--
Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3376 0125