[Sugar-devel] tracking upstream bugs

David Farning dfarning at sugarlabs.org
Thu Dec 18 12:40:21 EST 2008

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:33:49AM +1800, David Farning wrote:
>>Is the upstream bug tracking feature of lauchpad correctly set up to
>>push Sugar bugs through debian or directly up to the Sugar Labs bug
>>tracker?  If not, should I follow up?
> I have no knowledge on Ubuntu-specific mechanisms like their BTS, so
> cannot tell you specifically about above.
> Passing on bugreports upstream is generally A Good Thing(tm).
> I believe, however, that it makes best sense for bugreports to be passed
> back upstream through same channels as code is pulled downstream. That
> is, when Ubuntu users file bugreports against packages derived from
> Debian, it makes most sense to me that Ubuntu package maintainers file a
> bugreport against the origin Debian package. And similarly file a
> bugreport against Sugarlabs for non-local bugs in packages packaged
> directly from Sugarlabs.
> Also, passing on bugreports should only be done when relevant: Ubuntu
> package maintainers should in each and every case consider if the bug is
> likely to be tied to upstream code/packaging or only relevant for their
> own customizations or system environment. In other words: Don't just
> blindly pass all bugreports upstream!
Sounds good.
Launch pad lets a triager link a bug in the Ubuntu BTS to a bug in an
upstream BTS.  All of the traffic from the upstream bug is pulled in
as comments on the Downstream bug.

As Simon ramps up the Sugar Labs BugSquad, we will try to establish a
clear flow of useful bugs flowing upstream from Ubuntu to Debian to SL
and fixes flowing back down.


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list