Asking users to upstream

[Javier Domingo Cansino]

I have one more concern, closely related to that last one. Ubuntu is not a
bleeding edge distro and because of that, development upstream can be
affected by already corrected bugs. In Arch Linux for example, users report
all bugs upstream but the ones concerning the packaging. This flow however
is damaging (IMO) when users are served outdated versions of programs.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Thomas Ward <teward at trekweb.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 04/27/2015 09:55 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> > Thomas Ward:
> >> For which upstreams?  I have only seen this with one or two upstream
> >> trackers, and not all the comments trace back for all upstreams.
> >
> > Oh, that can be right. Nevertheless the upstream report would still be
> > at the distance of a click.
> >
> That still doesn't resolve my initial concerns.  It also doesn't answer
> my prior questions (which I've expanded here) of:
>
>   * Does upstream actually value this activity?  Do they have issues
>     with users who may be posting the bugs themselves to do the
>     upstreaming when they may not actually be able to provide enough
>     information for such upstream reports to be useful?
>   * Are the bugs being linked correctly back in Launchpad, or are some
>     slipping through the cracks as comments only and not actually linked
>     bugs?
>   * Have you done any spotchecks on upstreams, such as versions the bugs
>     are against being unsupported, or whether upstream is actually doing
>     anything with such upstreamed reports?  Does upstream end up with a
>     thousand duplicates as a result?  And if so, does that actually make
>     our users upstreaming the bugs worthwhile as a part of the "filing
>     the bug themselves" process?
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thomas
> --
> Ubuntu-quality mailing list
> Ubuntu-quality at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
>



-- 
Javier Domingo Cansino