On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Niklas Laxström <niklas.laxst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 July 2012 17:55, Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Niklas Laxström >> <niklas.laxst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think the upstream keyword in bugzilla is useless. Can we replace it >>> with a field which takes an url to the upstream bug report? >>> >> >> When I've filed an upstream but, I usually put it in the URL >> field. Does that not work? > > If you can keep the keyword and URL in sync. Quick search [1] confirms > my concerns. There seems to be only few cases where URL is used to > indicate where the bug happens, so conflicts on there are rare. But > the problem remains. > > [1] > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=upstream&columnlist=bug_status%2Cresolution%2Cshort_desc%2Cbug_file_loc
I've dabbled with the idea of turning "upstream" into a state, actually, since the state is often inconsistent (sometimes it stays open, sometimes its "resolved/later"), and it's not entirely clear what it should be. Another solution would be a resolution code (e.g. "resolved/filed-upstream") Barring any changes like that, I'd prefer to keep the keyword, and ask that the new Bug Wrangler help keep the upstream keyword up-to-date. For issues that do have the keyword, it's handy shorthand that has saved me some time parsing out the comments. Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
