1 |
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:32:38 +0200 |
2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:30:34 +0000 |
5 |
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:47:27PM +0200, Róbert Èeròanský wrote: |
8 |
> > > 2.3. Upstream issues |
9 |
> > > Do not close a bug (as RESOLVED/UPSTREAM) until it is fixed by |
10 |
> > > upstream. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> If the reason you propose this is visibility, then maybe we should |
13 |
> make the quicksearch option include more than just open bugs. I've |
14 |
> thought about having UPSTREAM/DUPLICATE/INVALID added so that |
15 |
|
16 |
Visibility, I would say is kind of derived problem. Visible or not, |
17 |
currently the RESOLVED/UPSTREM state does not tell whether a bug is |
18 |
fixed (in gentoo) or not. |
19 |
|
20 |
From a user point of view even an upstream bug is a bug in software |
21 |
that is part of gentoo distribution and I think the right way to deal |
22 |
with it would be to report it further to upstream by gentoo develpers, |
23 |
and close in gentoo once fixed version gets to the tree (of course |
24 |
users (most likely the reporter of a bug) can be asked to help and |
25 |
report bug by themselves). |
26 |
|
27 |
Just let bugzilla reflect the _realilty_, that's the right foundation |
28 |
to other issues as well I think (like visibility, dependency and so |
29 |
on). Yes we might end up with another 2500 bugs open but if that's |
30 |
the reality then let them be. Why pretend that they arn't there? |
31 |
|
32 |
However, to leave such bugs open as if they would be non-upstream ones |
33 |
is probably also not a good idea. I would imagine that a developer |
34 |
wants to see only those bugs that he can work on while on upstream |
35 |
ones he can not do anything. Therefore we need a new state that would |
36 |
represent "open upstream" bugs (EXPORTED/UPSTREAM perhaps). |
37 |
|
38 |
Robert |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Robert Cernansky |
43 |
E-mail: hslists2@××××××.sk |
44 |
Jabber: hs@××××××.sk |