On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Jef Spaleta <jspal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Morgan Howe <mth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I didn't say you need to bump it to bleeding edge git. I'm just letting > you > > know that there's a pretty serious bug in the current version of mesa > that > > is affecting at least a few people - probably even more who just rolled > back > > to F18 and didn't bother filing a bug report. I'm well aware that a > version > > bump might introduce new bugs, but just thought someone might want to > > consider at least looking into it since a completely broken X is a fairly > > major issue. > > okay im a little confused. You filed it and then closed it as upstream. > > How does that help the package maintainer in Fedora keep track of this > as an outstanding issue to possibly address as an update? > > You've short circuited the bug workflow a bit by jumping the gun and > marking your own issue as resolved. I believe the intent with regard > to the UPSTREAM resolution in our bugzilla workflow is for > "maintainers" to use to mark as resolved with the intention of pulling > new upstream release and pushing it as an update some time soonish. > If as the reporter you mark it as resolved, you've greatly reduced the > chance that a maintainer is going to notice the bug as still > outstanding. So you might want to rethink how you handled this report. That may have been a mistake on my part due to lack of knowledge on your bugzilla workflow, apologies for that. I haven't filed a bug report before and wasn't sure how that should be handled. I've reassigned the bug from xorg-x11-drv-ati to mesa, but I can't seem to reopen (only assign) the bug.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
