Bug 502320

We found this bug to be already filed in the upstream database (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477353) and believe that it is more appropriate to let it be resolved upstream.

Red Hat will continue to track the issue in the centralized upstream bug tracker, and will review any bug fixes that become available for consideration in future updates.

Thank you for the bug report.

Why are you closing Fedora bugs with generic *Red Hat* templates?

Also, the upstream bug linked to is a) reported against the Vista builds; b) conflates two different issues; and c) has had no attention from upstream.

This is the last bug I can be bothered filing against firefox/thunderbird on the Fedora bug tracker - they're always ignored or closed as upstream of some other unrelated bug.

Yeah, unimpressed.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Why are you closing Fedora bugs with generic *Red Hat* templates?

Because, I am Red Hat and *I* am subscribed to the upstream bug.

> Also, the upstream bug linked to is a) reported against the Vista builds; b)
> conflates two different issues; and c) has had no attention from upstream.

I don't think platform matters in this case (yes, that's just my guess). My experience is that usually upstream reacts reasonably on time to bugs where we make a comment or other noise.

> This is the last bug I can be bothered filing against firefox/thunderbird on
> the Fedora bug tracker - they're always ignored or closed as upstream of some
> other unrelated bug.

You're welcome.

(In reply to comment #2)
> This is the last bug I can be bothered filing against firefox/thunderbird on
> the Fedora bug tracker - they're always ignored or closed as upstream of some
> other unrelated bug.

Alternative to moving bugs upstream (where we can share the work with other engineers interested in Firefox) is that they will stay rottening in our Bugzilla forever ... we have just so much capacity for fixing Gecko & co. bugs. What would you prefer?

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Why are you closing Fedora bugs with generic *Red Hat* templates?
> 
> Because, I am Red Hat and *I* am subscribed to the upstream bug.
> 

The problem is, it's confusing. It gives the impression that Red Hat has high handedly decided that the Fedora project/community isn't going to fix the bug. Or, alternatively, it could be  interpreted as Red Hat taking responsibility for
Fedora bugs in an official capacity, which would also be a bit surprising. In
short, it's plain confusing and unhelpful to be muddying the distinction
between Red Hat and Fedora by closing bugs with templates designed (presumably)
for RHEL bugs.

I'd suggest s/Red Hat/We in your template, because what you actually mean is "The firefox package maintainers for the Fedora project".

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > This is the last bug I can be bothered filing against firefox/thunderbird on
> > the Fedora bug tracker - they're always ignored or closed as upstream of some
> > other unrelated bug.
> 
> Alternative to moving bugs upstream (where we can share the work with other
> engineers interested in Firefox) is that they will stay rottening in our
> Bugzilla forever ... we have just so much capacity for fixing Gecko & co. bugs.
> What would you prefer?  

Sure - I totally get that, I totally agree with moving the bugs upstream, and perhaps I should've reported there in the first place. I searched the upstream bugzilla before submitting the bug here to see if it was likely to be specific to the fedora package or not. Not seeing anything in the upstream bugzilla that was clearly the issue I was seeing, I reported it against the Fedora package first. What is a bit annoying is closing this bug as upstream against an upstream bug which, to me at least, is not clearly the same bug.

Let me step in here for a second, as ultimately, the package is my responsibility as the maintainer.

First, let me thank you for the report.  Honestly, we do read them all, as they provide useful feedback to us.  I want to apologize for the wording that was used.  I agree it is a little confusing, and I think your suggested change is reasonable, and will make sure we incorporate that in the future.

Also, I'd like to apologize for the bug being closed against the wrong bug.  We're only human and mistakes do happen at times.  Triaging bugs is largely a thankless job, and when pouring over bugs, mistakes can sometimes happen even though we try hard to get it right.  I can see why the upstream bug was chosen, even though it may not have been the ideal choice for the reasons you gave.

So, I'm going to re-open this bug for now.  I think we should still be moving this upstream, but to a more appropriate bug (if we can't find one, we can make sure one gets filed).

Again, your feedback is valuable and is heard by us even though we don't always get things right (but then again, I guess that's why bugs are filed to begin with).  I appreciate your bugs as they are generally well-filed, and sincerely hope that you continue to file bugs as you find them, either here or upstream as you deem appropriate.  In the future, if you feel like issues filed against Fedora aren't getting the attention they deserve, feel free to find me on IRC or email.

(In reply to comment #7)
> I want to apologize for the wording that was
> used.  I agree it is a little confusing, and I think your suggested change is
> reasonable, and will make sure we incorporate that in the future.

Fixed.

Thanks.

OK, searched around and I haven't find anything better, so filed a new bug.

Reporter, can I ask you for commenting on the upstream bug (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496561), please?

(In reply to comment #11)
> Reporter, can I ask you for commenting on the upstream bug
> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496561), please?  

OK, have done - I think the confusion is perhaps because you reported it against version 3.5beta (F11), rather than 3.0 (F10). Thanks for reporting it upstream - I had planned to get to that when I had a spare moment. But they're rare :).

(In reply to comment #12)
> OK, have done - I think the confusion is perhaps because you reported it
> against version 3.5beta (F11), rather than 3.0 (F10). Thanks for reporting it
> upstream - I had planned to get to that when I had a spare moment. But they're
> rare :).  

As noted in the upstream bug ... I have reproduced it with 3.5beta4 and yes menus are slightly different but functionality is the same.