Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Bugzilla interaction guide for devs & editbugs users

[Róbert Čerňanský]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:32:38 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:30:34 +0000
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:47:27PM +0200, Róbert Èeròanský wrote:
> > > 2.3. Upstream issues
> > >    Do not close a bug (as RESOLVED/UPSTREAM) until it is fixed by
> > >    upstream.
>
> If the reason you propose this is visibility, then maybe we should
> make the quicksearch option include more than just open bugs. I've
> thought about having UPSTREAM/DUPLICATE/INVALID added so that

Visibility, I would say is kind of derived problem.  Visible or not,
currently the RESOLVED/UPSTREM state does not tell whether a bug is
fixed (in gentoo) or not.

From a user point of view even an upstream bug is a bug in software
that is part of gentoo distribution and I think the right way to deal
with it would be to report it further to upstream by gentoo develpers,
and close in gentoo once fixed version gets to the tree (of course
users (most likely the reporter of a bug) can be asked to help and
report bug by themselves).

Just let bugzilla reflect the _realilty_, that's the right foundation
to other issues as well I think (like visibility, dependency and so
on).  Yes we might end up with another 2500 bugs open but if that's
the reality then let them be.  Why pretend that they arn't there?

However, to leave such bugs open as if they would be non-upstream ones
is probably also not a good idea.  I would imagine that a developer
wants to see only those bugs that he can work on while on upstream
ones he can not do anything.  Therefore we need a new state that would
represent "open upstream" bugs (EXPORTED/UPSTREAM perhaps).

Robert


-- 
Robert Cernansky
E-mail: hslists2@××××××.sk
Jabber: hs@××××××.sk