Bugs Reported Against a PPA

[Jordan Mantha]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:13 AM, hggdh <hggdh2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:55:41 -0800
> Jordan Mantha <laserjock at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
>> > My opinion:
>> >
>> > Bugs against a PPA should not be invalid bugs. They should be
>> > clearly identified as part of bug triage as being against a PPA,
>> > and the PPA owner should have a chance to decide what to do with
>> > the bug. This could be easily accomplished by adding a PPA tag to
>> > the bugs, and/or add [PPA] to the summary.
>>
>> I think rather the bugs should *not* be filed in Ubuntu's bug tracker
>> but sent to the PPA owner.
>
> I disagree. The easiest way to forward a bug to the PPA owner is by
> filling it as a bug...

But not in Ubuntu. Filing the bug in Ubuntu forwards the bug to
Ubuntu, not the PPA owner.

>>They can forward the bug on to Ubuntu if
>> they determine it to be an Ubuntu bug. What you're suggesting is
>> similar to us filing all our bugs in Debian's BTS and just flagging
>> them as "ubuntu". I don't think Debian would appreciate that too much
>> as I don't think most Ubuntu maintainers would appreciate bugs in our
>> bug tracker from 3rd party packages.
>
> This example, or so it seems to me, is not quite applicable:
>
> 1. PPAs allows one to build *Ubuntu* packages (or derivatives);
> 2. PPAs allows for specific testing of new features or upstream bug
> fixes;
> 3. PPAs can also be abused, of course; nevertheless the point here is
> not curbing or controlling such abuse, but allowing for tracking of
> issues on packages that satisfy (2) above.

PPA packages are *not* Ubuntu packages.  PPAs can be used for any
purpose and we don't need bugs from them.

>> It makes both triage and bug
>> fixing just that much harder if we have to always worry about what
>> somebody else has maybe done and track down changes in all the PPAs.
>
> Nobody proposed that, if I understand the thread. What was proposed is
> that PPA bugs should be recorded on Malone, and in such a way that they
> would be clearly understood as *NOT* official Ubuntu bugs.

The can be recorded in Malone but *should* not be in Ubuntu's bug
tracker (i.e. launchpad.net/ubuntu/ )

>> > Perhaps a better procedure that tags would be to create a package
>> > for the PPA. As bug reporters will not normally have the knowledge
>> > to create that package, it will become the job of the triage team.
>> > That involves more work for a team with enough work already.
>>
>> Launchpad doesn't have the ability to handle "ghost" packages.
>
> Indeed, and, for full support of PPAs, this should be addressed.
>
>> The best thing I can think of is to make Launchpad grow functionality
>> to file bugs against PPAs. People should be filing bugs in the place
>> where they got the software.
>
> I agree, and this is also what I proposed. But this functionality does
> not currently exist in Malone -- and this is also why I suggested
> involving Malone/LP development in this. But we should not need to
> wait...

Why not?

> We can still abuse Malone, until such a day arrives that Malone/LP
> development catches up. The other option would be to forbid such abuse
> -- which would mean that workflow "bugs" should also be dropped (since
> they are also not bugs, after all, and we are abusing Malone on this).

Workflow bugs are different. Workflow bugs, while perhaps not strictly
code bugs, *are* Ubuntu bugs. You're talking about allowing non-Ubuntu
bugs into Ubuntu's bug tracker, which is an entirely different abuse.
What about derivatives that use 3rd party repos, should we allow them
too? Bottom line, if a package isn't in Ubuntu its bugs really
shouldn't be in Ubuntu's bug tracker and should instead be sent to the
person who made the package.

-Jordan