| 1 |
On śro, 2017-03-29 at 16:01 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > > > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'd like to bring the problem of ambiguity of 'UPSTREAM' resolution |
| 4 |
> > on our Bugzilla to the discussion. |
| 5 |
> > While the resolution generically indicates an issue upstream, it is |
| 6 |
> > used differently by different developers, and sometimes even in a |
| 7 |
> > few meanings by a single developer. What's even worse, it is both |
| 8 |
> > used as a positive, neutral and negative resolution which renders it |
| 9 |
> > kinda meaningless as a classification criteria. |
| 10 |
> > [...] |
| 11 |
> > How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution, |
| 12 |
> > and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular |
| 13 |
> > resolution? |
| 14 |
> > Any other ideas? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Use it in the sense as it is defined in Bugzilla? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> UPSTREAM |
| 19 |
> The requested bug is considered to be out of the purview of the |
| 20 |
> distro and should be submitted/discussed directly with the |
| 21 |
> respective upstream project. This could include a number of things |
| 22 |
> such as changing default configuration options or behavior, adding |
| 23 |
> new options or functionality, or deleting support for older |
| 24 |
> systems. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> IMHO it would be out of proportion to remove the field, just because |
| 27 |
> some developers don't use it as intended. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What is your plan on making the developers use it correctly? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
Archives