[CentOS-devel] RE: bugs.centos.org

Tue Jan 9 00:10:29 UTC 2007
Greg Swallow <greg at runlevel7.ca>

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> We want people to submit Bugs to the mantis ... and we want to
> to look through and answer the bug requests.  CentOS is community
> We would also like a knowledgeable team of "Trusted Users" (thanks for
> volunteering to Steven Smoogen ... he is going to be one of these
> be able to provide answers, as well as have the knowledge to open
> upstream bugzilla entries when those are required.  I do want to put
> links in the upstream bugzilla that point back to the centos entry, so
> that users searching in either can see both.

If you want to trust me, I'm volunteering as well :-)  I'd suggest
another mailing list, maybe bugteam at lists.centos.org - and have that
address get assigned any new bugs (and all unassigned old ones) so
interested people (ie, the "Trusted Users") can get a copy of all the
bug reports.  It seems bugs get automatically assigned to you at the

> We (the developers) will also (from time to time) create "issue
> trackers" in the bugs database to report positive and negative
> for packages that we put into the testing repo.

That's good - I think you could say that is similar to a "Package
Review" bug report in the RedHat bugzilla for a new Fedora Extras
package.  Not everything has to be a "bug".

> ...
> It is my feeling that items that are "Upstream required" actions
> be listed both in bugs.centos.org and an upstream bugzilla ... and
> should not be "final actioned" until they are final actioned upstream.
> And maybe not even then ... as in the case of this bug:
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1637
> That allows CentOS users to know about the bug if they search the
> bugs database, and it allows users of the upstream product see that
> CentOS is not just a "Sponge Project" that keeps taking and taking
> giving nothing back.  It is good for the upstream provider and their
> customers to know that CentOS is providing them a huge benefit by
> providing issues to support for correction (sometimes with suggested
> patches and solutions included).

How about adding a Category called "Upstream-RHEL4", and changing bugs
from whatever the category is currently to "Upstream-RHEL4" once it has
been reported upstream?  Easier to keep track of upstream bugs that way
I think, and you can run a report on how many bugs were reported by
CentOS users.