| 1 |
On 30/03/17 18:52, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 04:15:12PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 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. |
| 4 |
> I disagree with resolved/invalid being appropriate. That means it isn't |
| 5 |
> a bug at all. Resolved/upstream should be used when we direct a user to |
| 6 |
> file an issue upstream or file the issue ourselves. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Resolved/upstream acknowledges that this is an issue but directs it |
| 9 |
> upstream. Resolved/invalid says this isn't an issue. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> William |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
I've often thought that "RESO:INVA" is simply tech-speak for "we're not |
| 14 |
gonna [investigate] fix that ... " |
Archives