"Here come and join Fedora we will allow you to do everything but influence or participate in anykind of direction that project might take but we do our best effort making you feel like you actually are making a difference"
An truly a dark day in Fedora community history taking place there with Red Hat essentially acting as Canonical towards the Fedora community.
I feel compelled to point I have been part of Fedora QA longer then the entire current Red Hat's Fedora QA staff.
That staff is made entirely out of individuals outside the community that come and go as people do in any regular job and the community cant rely on so I ask of you in your future articles to make an clear distinction of the Fedora QA community members and Red Hat hired and planted staff to work on Fedora QA under various made up titles within that company that have no meaning out in the community.
Adam Williamson for example is not from the Fedora community, he never was but was hired and planted into the community through a made up position from within the ranks of Red Hat.
An position that now is being shared by two individuals ( or the new one which has replaced Adam which means he's leaving either Red Hat or to do something else).
And dont mistake me, he and a lot of RH employees go on and beyond their corporate duty and try to do their best to make Fedora succeed ( both within the community as well as fight for it's right within Red Hat ) and stay true to the community spirit so one cannot blame it's entire staff but people should be aware of how Red Hat operates as a company and how in reality it's treating the community.
Now the article is mostly spot on with the exception that you failed to mentioned that the triaging efforts within the distribution have failed 4 times which I'm pretty sure Bill was already aware of when he responded with "triagers".
As well as Matthias response which makes a point which I do believe many share
"Upstream bugzilla has advantages for us as developers - we can use
git-bz to attach patches, and splinter to review them, which is very
The main advantage of downstream bug reporting at this point is
retrace.fedoraproject.org, as far as I'm concerned."
It was also pointed out outside the mailinglist ( irc ) that in Gnome for example they need an upstream report for most fixes since a lot of gnome modules require commits reference to an upstream bug report in the commit message.
Another point was made ( on irc ) that we as an downstream are giving our users binaries but upstream usually can only debug using source, which points out another problem that a lot of people can't rebuild complete upstream code outside the the distribution.
And this problem is not limited to distribution.
If we take for example kernel.org bugzilla it's an hit an miss for reporters depending on subsystem.
In the end of the day( as got pointed out as well on irc ) the only thing that matters is talking to your devs through the interface they find effective by the person which can reproduce it locally ( be it the reporter,the triager,the packager ).
Our part in Fedora QA is to find the most effective way of having the bug reported in our distribution fixed for our userbase not let them rot in our bug tracker like many do .
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds