| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 04:15:12PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> [Sent from my iPad, as it is not a secured device there are no cryptographic keys on this device, meaning this message is sent without an OpenPGP signature. In general you should *not* rely on any information sent over such an unsecure channel, if you find any information controversial or un-expected send a response and request a signed confirmation] |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On 29 Mar 2017, at 09:56, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution, |
| 9 |
> > and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular resolution? |
| 10 |
> > Any other ideas? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Upstream keyword doesn't seem relevant as it implies having submitted patch or at least filed bug upstream, so the real question is whether we need a separation of something that is out of scope for Gentoo and can be referred upstream or not. The way I see it, directly using RESOLVED INVALID is likely as good an explaination as RESOLVED UPSTREAM unless we want to monitor stats for rejection reasons. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I disagree with resolved/invalid being appropriate. That means it isn't |
| 15 |
a bug at all. Resolved/upstream should be used when we direct a user to |
| 16 |
file an issue upstream or file the issue ourselves. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Resolved/upstream acknowledges that this is an issue but directs it |
| 19 |
upstream. Resolved/invalid says this isn't an issue. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
William |
Archives