1 |
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:30:34 +0000 |
2 |
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:47:27PM +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote: |
5 |
> > 2.3. Upstream issues |
6 |
> > Do not close a bug (as RESOLVED/UPSTREAM) until it is fixed by |
7 |
> > upstream. |
8 |
|
9 |
If the reason you propose this is visibility, then maybe we should make |
10 |
the quicksearch option include more than just open bugs. I've thought |
11 |
about having UPSTREAM/DUPLICATE/INVALID added so that bugzilla users |
12 |
can more easily discover whether a bug was already reported and was |
13 |
deemed fixed, a duplicate of another bug or canonically invalid. |
14 |
|
15 |
> This implies that the upstream is alive enough to fix it. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I feel it should mean that the bug has been reported to upstream, and |
18 |
> that state is documented in the bug. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> If we keep every upstream bug open instead of closed, we'd have |
21 |
> probably another 2500 open bugs (5312 RESO/UPSTREAM in the history of |
22 |
> Gentoo, and I'm ballparking that 50% aren't actually fixed yet |
23 |
> upstream). |
24 |
|
25 |
Quoting [1]: |
26 |
UPSTREAM |
27 |
It is not suitable to deal with the bug at this level, and the bug |
28 |
should be taken to the upstream developers for resolution. |
29 |
|
30 |
It all depends on the kind of bug. Requests for new features should |
31 |
probably normally go upstream (including the kind where a patch is |
32 |
available). That's out of our scope. With the above proposal, feature |
33 |
request bugs like bug #171277 [2] might not go unnoticed as easily. In |
34 |
the case of app-misc/screen, upstream did seem dead for a couple of |
35 |
years, and even now after many new features were added (including |
36 |
vertical split) and bug fixes were included there, there is still no |
37 |
new version out. I guess that bug is still not marked UPSTREAM just to |
38 |
aid in its visibility - after the bug was reopened, no more |
39 |
duplicates were filed. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
jer |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#resolution |
46 |
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171277 |