I'm running an experiment about reporting upstream

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Thomas Ward:
 > If packages I watch are affected by this it will mess up my
 > procedures for maintaining the NGINX packages as well as others.

It will only affect packages whose developers asked to track bugs in an 
external bug tracker; as KDE, GNOME, Linux, VirtualBox, and so did.

NGINX tracks its bugs in Launchpad. Projects fully tracked in Launchpad 
won't be affected.


Thomas Ward:
 > I think there may be several teams who have established special
 > workflows and should not be covered by this.

Since all the affected bugs are tracked in an upstream bug tracker, that 
tracker policies would still arbitrate the real triaging.

Moreover, I have reported some bugs that didn't affect me upstream and 
when I was asked questions I didn't know what to answer. That's when I 
suspected that reporting upstream by a different person could be a waste 
of time.


Rohan Garg:
 > This is already the case for any KDE bugs that you may encounter.

So it seems somebody before me concluded that reporting upstream is an 
affordable task for the user and time consuming for a bug squad.

I still won't say that, but sure it's worth testing and get some figures.


Regards ;)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3748 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20141210/c94d4fda/attachment-0001.bin>