I'm running an experiment about reporting upstream

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Rohan Garg:
> The reason Kubuntu went with that approach is because we wanted the
> developers to directly interact with the bug reporter
> instead of Kubuntu Developers trying to spend trying to reproduce the
> bug and then reporting it upstream.

And why you decided to set its status to "invalid"? Wouldn't this 
prevent downstream contributors to find and fix KDE bugs themselves?


Brian Murray:
 > I think it would be a good idea to identify these bug reports with a
 > tag so that if you are "hit by a bus" we can easily find these bug
 > reports.
 > Additionally, it would also allow other people to watch the
 > experiment.

Tag added to <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Tags#Generic_bug_tags> as 
"asked-to-upstream".


Stephen M. Webb:
 > I don't see why you would single out one particular upstream bug
 > tracker for special treatment.  If someone, for example, files a bug
 > against the Compiz package in Ubuntu I'd want to see it sent upstream
 > to Compiz, which happens to track its upstream bugs in Launchpad.

The real topic of this conversation is not about reporting upstream, but 
about who shall fill a new report when that is required for reporting to 
upstream.



-------------- 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/20141212/3859a89a/attachment.bin>