But that doesn't really matter in this topic. The discussion is related to if the upstream bug should be filed by the package maintainer, or by the person reporting the bug.
Going through the article, it seems that there are multiple needs and it is expected that you can only have one solution. I think that's wrong.
For Fedora, you want to have an overview of important big impact bugs. It doesn't matter if this is a list compiled via upstream bugs or not. You need to be aware of big issues and work on them. Part of those bugs are purely upstream bugs, but you will still need to be aware of them.
Then for any release, the QA process also needs to handle releasing a new image. I don't get why suddenly this is mixed together with the other needs. If QA would write this down on a paper, used a telephone to call people and that works for the QA process, then why not use that?
Then you have packages with either an overworked maintainer, or a package which plainly does not differ from upstream (no patch). Why not just send this upstream directly?
You could have a real packaging bug (error in description, URL, whatever). That is another need.
IMO the various needs need to be written down. Don't immediately look for technical solutions.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds