On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:32:38 +0200 Jeroen Roovers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:30:34 +0000 > "Robin H. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:47:27PM +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote: > > > 2.3. Upstream issues > > > Do not close a bug (as RESOLVED/UPSTREAM) until it is fixed by > > > upstream. > > If the reason you propose this is visibility, then maybe we should > make the quicksearch option include more than just open bugs. I've > thought about having UPSTREAM/DUPLICATE/INVALID added so that Visibility, I would say is kind of derived problem. Visible or not, currently the RESOLVED/UPSTREM state does not tell whether a bug is fixed (in gentoo) or not. From a user point of view even an upstream bug is a bug in software that is part of gentoo distribution and I think the right way to deal with it would be to report it further to upstream by gentoo develpers, and close in gentoo once fixed version gets to the tree (of course users (most likely the reporter of a bug) can be asked to help and report bug by themselves). Just let bugzilla reflect the _realilty_, that's the right foundation to other issues as well I think (like visibility, dependency and so on). Yes we might end up with another 2500 bugs open but if that's the reality then let them be. Why pretend that they arn't there? However, to leave such bugs open as if they would be non-upstream ones is probably also not a good idea. I would imagine that a developer wants to see only those bugs that he can work on while on upstream ones he can not do anything. Therefore we need a new state that would represent "open upstream" bugs (EXPORTED/UPSTREAM perhaps). Robert -- Robert Cernansky E-mail: [email protected] Jabber: [email protected]
