Ubuntu bug tracking - registration-required and non-free software [LWN.net]

Ubuntu bug tracking - registration-required and non-free software

Posted Feb 29, 2008 2:01 UTC (Fri) by tseaver (subscriber, #1544)
In reply to: Ubuntu bug tracking - registration-required and non-free software by bignose
Parent article: A brief look at some distribution news

The two issues you bring up are separate:

 - anonymous submission of bugreoprts:  I'm not sure that I agree that
   getting anonymous reports actually helps the project, because there
   is no way to ask an anonymous user for further information, or to
   confirm that a given change actually fixed the reported bug.  I know
   that on projects I work on, I triage anonymous reports lower than
   those which come from a "real person".

 - modifying Launchpad:  even if the software were open, you wouldn't
   be able to modify the copy running at launchpad.net without persuading
   the folks running launchpad that your changes were beneficial;  you
   would only be able to set up a separate site running with your patches
   applied.

(Log in to post comments)

Ubuntu bug tracking - registration-required and non-free software

Posted Feb 29, 2008 2:20 UTC (Fri) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

> The two issues you bring up are separate:

Yes, separate but related. That's why I put them in the post as separate paragraphs.

> I'm not sure that I agree that getting anonymous reports actually helps the project

A good thing that's not what I'm advocating then.

I'm pointing out that requiring registration is a significant barrier to the implied goal of
"Ubuntu wants all users to be involved with bug squashing." Removing registration does *not*
mean "getting anonymous bug reports helps the project".

Consider e.g. the Debian bug tracker, which requires no registration, yet has plenty of
communication with bug submitters.

> even if the software were open, you wouldn't be able to modify the copy running at
launchpad.net

Again, that's orthogonal to the point. If the bug tracker program were published free software
(again, like the Debian bug tracker, which is published as the 'debbugs' package), it's at
least *feasible* for an outsider to present a patch that implements a desired change in
behaviour. There's nothing compelling them to implement a given patch, but publishing the tool
as a maintained free software package would at least demonstrate they were open to the
possibility.

By implementing their bug tracker as non-free software, they give the lie to the idea that
they want community involvement in the bug tracking process, because the tools used are an
essential part of that process.