move to rawhide update (Fedora QA breakage)
pbrobinson at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 05:37:52 EDT 2009
> Now I see what's going on. Clueless people are crashing around in the
> bug database, "helping" developers by hassling users. Then if you
> don't answer the idiots, 30 days later they close out your bug report
> as "CLOSED:INSUFFICIENT_DATA". Instead of a bridge, they seem to be
> more of a barrier, though perhaps they do good work somewhere. I
> think these are the same people who also trashed the "OLPC
> suspend/resume is broken" bug report, by running a script that
> declared it an obsolete problem that only applied to F10, even though
> the problem persists long after F10. But as the BugZapper credo says,
> "No programming knowledge is necessary, and triagers don't necessarily
> need to understand the bugs they are working on."
I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe the reason for the
"relable as F10" is primarily due to the fact that Fedora is
relatively fast moving. The idiots you refer to are in the case of the
"this has been reported in rawhide during the F10 development process
so assigning it to F10" are in fact scripts so are complete idiots.
There's a good reason to assign it from rawhide to the specific
release that it was reported under, its because it moves very quickly.
X is an example of this. There's been massive changes in the last 3-4
fedora releases and for example errors related to input devices
reported in F-9 are completely irrelevant in F-10 because the entire X
input subsystem was replaced. So to be able to see that it was
reported in what became F-9 is important because its going to be
completely different issue in F-10. Just because it gets moved from a
rawhide designator to a F-10 one doesn't mean its closed, and if its
still relevant for rawhide, you can update it. I do so regularly.
As for the bugZappers..... no comment :-)
More information about the Devel