From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB5E1384C0 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E23361428F; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 029F41420E for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obcid8 with SMTP id id8so22464408obc.0 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:03:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ggZZ0BTurYb/DBcxdgHFZ+qjAYoqIGltU428Iuqyzkc=; b=pxCxPH6xRIS0jbRlNsgVYfFKOy9d5o7XH6nUhzGUQ3W2UaeHDq+fDwOpc6xJQX26x5 ecMfj9dpyvL4LG5NVEufXezp6THU99lU2bBrvDnDzK+XlOE9mJ5W/duOzOVJRcNuWaRz Z3+d7gLxRJBzNNHnJyHM2Y7l6jL5HMTJOiL/v2cm/3C9nOgldrYz4hz7CI++ReE4R8hd CLXn+tE43O0L4VloTW5HWraVrBS8D3+hT5yIhMC9nPrKMKPZrXFDjS3MiGFtwrpVP9g5 5nC6J0RH0X5m77ZOfCGWgVvNmb+Vb31bJ5hH0TNw+ARAPAJ0lkXH8Ix/3z8ABXTmRldD 5XmA== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.36.202 with SMTP id s10mr11279527oej.0.1440918217207; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.106.72 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:03:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:03:37 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Better way to direct upstream bugs upstream? From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev Cc: x11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 2bf91385-7ca7-46d8-b183-d1b7dea1f457 X-Archives-Hash: 3005bc211fb9489005016664d6218fc1 On 30 August 2015 at 07:53, Matt Turner wrote: > > Is there a better way of directing reporters to file bugs upstream? Of > course it's not always clear whether a bug is an ebuild bug or > something easily patched in Gentoo vs a driver bug that requires an > upstream developer... I've always seen it as a case where Gentoo devs stand as a layer of sanitization between downstream and upstream. Wherein reporting things upstream is good, but having a downstream tracker for it is also good, so that when the bug is resolved upstream, that the consequences of it are known to be propagated downstream. And if upstream refuses to fix a bug, Gentoo devs have to choose how to handle that problem for downstream, sometimes patching around it, or if that is not simple, or not possible, to provide blockers where necessary, or produce end-user-visible warnings about problematic behaviour, etc. So, even in the case users are prompted to file bugs upstream first, they should also at minimum report to gentoo when the bug is resolved upstream so that the fix can be replicated. Its also not always abundantly clear to end users where upstream is, and there are potholes in that process. For instance, in Perl space, the "Current upstream reporting que" is often RT, but it can be github, and knowing exactly where the reporting queue *currently* is something that can't be reliably replicated in metadata.xml, because it can change on a whim, and sometimes the metadata visible on the CPAN sources is also wrong, and requires an experienced developer to chase its tail to work out where it currently is. And there are some upstreams on CPAN where there is no documented or stated bug reporting mechanism, and in such cases, the metadata will encourage you to use the defacto standard, RT, and doing so for some upstreams will get you automated mails that will possibly make the reporter recoil in a corner for a bit. I know and have had moderate success in dealing with upstreams like that, because I've worked out from listening to people talk how/where to actaully talk about problems and try to work out how to say things in a way that will work. ( That is, I'm a much better reporter at reporting faults found in gentoo to some upstreams than any user could hope to be ) There are also cases where users reporting direct to upstream just irritates upstream, because its a breakage/potential breakage due to something gentoo does, and you have the whole hostile "not our problem, you're on gentoo, you get to keep the pieces" response. For these reasons, I think its best that those with the most knowledge of how upstream works, ( us, the developers ) handle reports from end users and ferry them upstream. -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL