I'm continuing the discussion here that was started in a ticket on Trac (1), since it's not appropriate to continue the discussion in that ticket.
Since the question was asked "So what is the recommended way to request for backporting something already proposed in Bloodhound and provide a hint to describe the solution", my recommendations are: * Reproduce the issue in the Trac core - in 0.12-stable, 1.0-stable or trunk, as appropriate for the context. It's not very friendly of us to put the burden on Trac developers to reproduce an issue that we've only proven exists in Bloodhound, even if we think it's obvious the issue exists in Trac. * Write a ticket that describes the problem or proposed enhancement in the context of Trac. Bloodhound does not need to be mentioned if it's not relevant to the issue. For example, trac:#11515 (2) was reported based on bh:#759 (3). There's no reason to mention bh:#759 in trac:#11515 since it's entirely irrelevant to the Trac developers *in this case*. There will also be cases in which we should point to a Bloodhound ticket or mailing list discussion - use best judgement. It's not that we need to avoid mentioning Bloodhound when reporting issues in Trac, rather a matter of sticking to what is relevant. * Don't pollute the Trac issue tracker with keywords such as "bloodhound", when it's irrelevant to Trac and is only useful for Bloodhound devs. This is the same as what we've discussed with regard to polluting the Bloodhound issue tracker with bhnet keywords (4). * Attach the patch directly to the Trac ticket rather than pointing to patches in Bloodhound. This has been requested by other Trac devs, not just myself. These are just recommendations provided with the aim that we be better citizens of the Trac project, and I think they are generally applicable towards any Bloodhound dependency. (1) http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/11513#comment:4 (2) http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/11515 (3) https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/759 (4) http://markmail.org/message/mvnvguptlk7qvqma
