ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:58:28PM -0400, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
> Le 2015-10-01 13:48, Alberto Salvia Novella a écrit :
> > Alan Pope:
> >> Yes, I've used that feature a lot. You've missed the point where I
> >> said the upstream isn't on launchpad. It's here on github.
> > 
> > You can both configure the project to be upstream itself, or to point to
> > a upstream bug tracker.
> > 
> > Note the difference:
> > <https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/+bug/1501782/+choose-affected-product>
> > 
> > <https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/1501289/+choose-affected-product>
> 
> Those are not the same at all -- please don't confuse them.
> 
> It's correct for unity to have a bugtracker on Launchpad, as it is a
> project from Ubuntu developers, who consciously chose LP to be the
> official point of contact for the project.
> 
> This *isn't* the case for Xorg.
> 
> > 
> > Thomas Ward:
> >> We on bugcontrol should never have to mess with Launchpad
> >> projects, nor would we necessarily have to create projects just to
> >> link remote bugtrackers
> > 
> > We should, as this saves us for looking for the bug tracker each time we
> > have to upstream. This is specially important when you are working with
> > all the 48000+ packages in Ubuntu.
> > 
> 
> No, it's not. You don't need the bugtrackers on projects, you can link
> to upstream bug reports, in their own bug trackers, using the proper
> URLs. This ensures the upstream developers get the bug reports, and that
> we know when an upstream bug is fixed, so we know there may be a patch
> to cherry-pick.
> 
> > 
> > Thomas Ward:
> >> If we did that for everything we'd have one project for every package.
> > 
> > Not really, as many packages belong to the same upstream project. And
> > even if that was the case, it would still be more convenient than
> > looking for the upstream bug tracker for every package you triage.
> > 
> 
> It's irrelevant really. You *do* need to look for the upstream bug
> tracker if there is one, for any package you triage. It is important to
> try to get the patches and changes back upstream, or to let upstream
> developers know of the bugs so they can work on them.
> 
> It's also *critical* that we don't force upstream developers to go look
> in multiple places to find the bugs relevant to their project, as this
> would be confusing and a big waste of time.
> 
> In other words, if something isn't specifically *your* project, or very
> explicitly meant to be hosted on Launchpad, it doesn't need a bugtracker
> configured for the project on Launchpad -- nothing needs to change.

I haven't looked at this process in a while, but I believe it is
possible to have a project in Launchpad which represents the upstream
for the code in the package, not enable bug filing for that project, and
indicate that bugs are tracked elsewhere. If the bug tracker is a
supported type of bug tracker then you can have bug watches for upstream
bug reports. Without a project, even a place holder one, it is not
possible to link to an upstream bug report.

As an example have a look at the cmatrix package:

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cmatrix

There are no upstream connections and if you go to a bug to add a bug
watch it wants you to add a project.

Having said all this I don't recall who has permissions to register or
link to upstream projects and that sounds like an issue to bring up with
the Launchpad team.

--
Brian Murray

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature