On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 03:21:40PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:04:43PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > submitter to work with upstream directly, or the maintainer has to add > > the bug to the bottom of his own long TODO list.
> I don't see why...it takes a few seconds to pass on a bug. If it only takes a few seconds, then why do you object to being asked to do it yourself? ;) The reality is that while it might only take a few seconds to blindly forward the bug report to the upstream developers, *following through* on the bug and ensuring that it gets *fixed* can sometimes be a very lengthy process -- *even when you already have a patch for the bug*. Sometimes upstream disagrees with the way the patch was done; sometimes upstream moves out from under you while the patch is being written, and you have to resubmit it; sometimes, it's just a matter of pinging upstream to remind them to apply the patch. There are lots of reasons why upstream bugs can -- and usually do -- take a lot longer than a few seconds to get fixed. If we as maintainers are concerned about *getting bugs fixed* instead of just passing the buck, sometimes the best thing we can do to help our users is put them in touch with upstream developers. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
msg08241/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
