Thomas Ward:
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?
All reports at
<https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&field.tag=asked-to-upstream&orderby=-heat>
were handled properly by their reporters.
What won't be a surprise, as they are asked to upstream only after the
report in Launchpad is complete. So they will figure out what upstream
expects.
Thomas Ward:
> Are the bugs being linked correctly back in Launchpad, or are some
> slipping through the cracks as comments only and not actually linked
> bugs?
Looks like that's okay too.
Thomas Ward:
> 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?
From all the bugs I just checked, I only remember one being marked as
duplicate. There was no one upstream said they didn't support.
Javier Domingo Cansino:
> 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 outdated versions of programs.
I think the only way to know is actually asking upstream.
On the other hand, this issue is the reason why I only work on bugs in
the current and future Ubuntu releases. So perhaps bugs in previous
releases could be treated differently, if you have a better idea.
--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
