Packages versus upstream bug reports, was Re: Merge projects in Launchpad

[Christian Robottom Reis]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:30:35PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
> I am still confused from a bug reporter/triagers point of view.  I am

Ah, let's try and clarify that, then.

> putting together some wiki pages at
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bugs and
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bugs/Triage so, I would like to get
> things right
> 
> Once a bug has been determined to exist upstream should it be moved from
> +source/firefox to +package/firefox?

Well, +package doesn't apply here, and "moving" isn't really the right
term -- since if it's an upstream issue the bug exists in both places:
upstream and in the source package.

If correctly filed, the bug will be reported against Ubuntu first (so it
would be a +source bug, yes), where then later it may be identified as
an upstream issue. When that happens the "Also Affects: +Upstream" link
in the bug page is to be used; this will add to the bug a status in the
upstream context.

When you mention +package, you are talking about a binary package, but
still under Ubuntu (if you listed the entire URL you'd have /ubuntu/ in
it). Binary packages in the bug tracker are only used as convenience to
end-users: we allow people to specify binary packages but all we do is
look up what source package corresponds to that binary and then set the
source correctly.

It's not possible to file the bug against upstream firefox directly in
Launchpad, by the way:

    https://launchpad.net/firefox/+filebug

I've raised priority of the two bugs below to make this better, but the
general idea is that when upstream doesn't officially use Launchpad to
track bugs, you only use Launchpad to escalate bugs to upstream.

    https://launchpad.net/malone/+bug/50677
    https://launchpad.net/malone/+bug/42480

Let me know if you'd like me to explain further.
-- 
Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3376 0125