Re: Upstream access to Ubuntu package bugs

[Marco Rodrigues <gothicx@xxxxxxx>]

I like also to manage bugs for ddclient package. :-) That will be a nice feature.

Bjorn Tillenius wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:35:26AM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 03:10:50PM +0100, Matthew Revell wrote:
>>> I'm told that they've expressed frustration at not being able to set 
>>> importances, see private bugs and set wishlist bugs. These tasks are 
>>> reserved for the Ubuntu drivers, as it's an Ubuntu package and not the 
>>> upstream project.
>> I remember this request, but there seems to be a rush to solutions
>> instead of considering how they should work.
> 
> I agree, it seems a bit strange that upstream should prioritize Ubuntu
> bugs. OTOH, if upstream wants to help with Ubuntu bugs, we shouldn't
> stop them.
> 
> 
>> There are two ways forward here: either the Amarok team go through the
>> process of being Ubuntu QA and are given the required privileges, or
>> they manage their own Amarok tasks in bugs.
>>
>> There are ways of improving both these approaches:
>>
>>     - We could offer a per-package official bug contact, which would
>>       still be official Ubuntu QA, but only for a specific package.
> 
> I was going to suggest something like this. Tom is currently working on
> 'structual subscriptions', which will allow you to subscribe to
> different objects, for example projects and packages. When that is done,
> we can convert the existing package bug contacts to subscriptions, and
> then we can use package bug contacts to give permission for working on
> bugs for a specific package. That way there's no real difference between
> being a bug contact for a distro, project, or package, it's only the
> scope that's different, so i think it's a better model than what we have
> today.
> 
> 
>>     - We could offer ways of better tracking the upstream task for
>>       the Ubuntu context. This requires some brainstorming, but maybe
>>       for triage purposes we could say "Ubuntu task follows upstream".
> 
> This is also an interesting option, although it takes more effort to
> discuss and implements, so I don't think we should do this right now.
> The distro team have already asked for something like this, since they
> have a few projects that they are upstream for (e.g. upstart, apport,
> update-manager).
> 
> 
>> I'd be happy to consider either of these approaches. Do people have
>> other suggestions of changes we could make?
> 
> Another suggestion is of course to talk to the Amorak team and see why
> they want to work on the Ubuntu bugs. Maybe it'd be enough if we made it
> really easy to forward the Ubuntu bugs to their bug tracker.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bjorn
> 

-- 
Marco Rodrigues

http://Marco.Tondela.org