| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'd like to bring the problem of ambiguity of 'UPSTREAM' resolution |
| 4 |
> on our Bugzilla to the discussion. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> While the resolution generically indicates an issue upstream, it is |
| 7 |
> used differently by different developers, and sometimes even in a |
| 8 |
> few meanings by a single developer. What's even worse, it is both |
| 9 |
> used as a positive, neutral and negative resolution which renders it |
| 10 |
> kinda meaningless as a classification criteria. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> [...] |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution, |
| 15 |
> and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular |
| 16 |
> resolution? |
| 17 |
> Any other ideas? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Use it in the sense as it is defined in Bugzilla? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
UPSTREAM |
| 22 |
The requested bug is considered to be out of the purview of the |
| 23 |
distro and should be submitted/discussed directly with the |
| 24 |
respective upstream project. This could include a number of things |
| 25 |
such as changing default configuration options or behavior, adding |
| 26 |
new options or functionality, or deleting support for older |
| 27 |
systems. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
IMHO it would be out of proportion to remove the field, just because |
| 30 |
some developers don't use it as intended. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ulrich |
Archives