[Bug 2155] sftp program has tty attributes setting problem

[bugzilla-daemon at mindrot.org]

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2155

robie.basak at ubuntu.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |robie.basak at ubuntu.com

--- Comment #9 from robie.basak at ubuntu.com ---
> IMO that attitude from a vendor is laziness on their part.  They're
> shipping an old, modified version of openssh, so it's their 
> responsibility to investigate problems to a) make sure it's not due to 
> their changes, b) not already fixed and c) the problems are reported 
> against the right upstream.

Hi. I triaged this bug in Ubuntu. I feel that I have been mispresented
here.

I appreciate that I shouldn't be sending bugs upstream without checking
them first, being reasonably confident that they affect the latest
upstream release and have not been introduced by the distribution.

I did NOT say that this bug was ready to be reported upstream. I
specifically said that the bug needed to be tested against the latest
upstream release without distribution patches, and only in that case
should the bug be reported upstream.

I said: "Could you please test the latest upstream release, and if this
still affects the upstream release without distribution patches, file a
bug in the upstream bug tracker to get upstream's opinion?"

In the case of this particular bug I wasn't even sure if this was
expected behaviour by design. I do not wish to diverge from upstream on
behaviour such as this. So if verified that this affected the latest
upstream release without distribution patches, I then wanted to check
with you if you considered this behaviour a bug at all.

I'm sorry that it didn't occur to me that you were depending on another
library for this functionality. As you can see from the bug, I didn't
get that far.

Rather than laziness, we are in a situation where far too many bugs are
reported, and there aren't enough bug triagers to keep up. So rather
than have bugs languish forever, I prefer to note in the bug what
actions need to be taken next to empower the reporter to do them to at
leave the option of making progress. Bugs affecting only one person
after over a year of release tend not to get looked at any other way.

Again, I did not intend to get you involved without a reporter having
done basic checks to ensure that your latest release was affected, and
I apologise for the noise.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.