Adding presubj files for all KDE packages

[Modestas Vainius]

Hello,

On 2009 m. May 26 d., Tuesday 05:44:25 Armin Berres wrote:
> with the template provided by Modestas. Is this our new policy? Do we
> officially not forward bugreports anymore (at least as long as we have
> no "Bugsqad") and tell people immediately to take this upstream?
> I am just asking, because my impression after various discussions e.g.
> on d-d at l.d.o has been that this is considered quite rude. But in fact it
> is way less rude than just letting the bugs rot forever.
Who thinks it is rude, (s)he can join our team and do a better job (but they 
won't). The main difference is that KDE is not a small package and most vocal 
developers on d-d at l.d.o have no idea what it is like to maintain a huge pile 
of software which you hardly use 1/3rd yourself (I base my opinion on 
discussion about copyright files). It is either:

1) let user know what is typically going to happen with his/her bug (i.e. 
nothing). If we continue with tagging 'upstream', we do a pretty good job 
separating wasted bugs from useful ones and it is already an improvement.
2) forget/ignore bugs like we did before. BTS continues to become useless.

IMHO, 1st is a better option. As for presubj, we only have a handful of people 
reporting upstream bugs to Debian BTS. Once they all get a template reply at 
least once, it is high probability they won't report such bugs again (or think 
good about it before reporting). So eventually such presubj's won't be needed.

-- 
Modestas Vainius <geromanas at mailas.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20090526/861564aa/attachment.pgp>