On Wednesday 26 February 2014 09:51:24 Jonathan Riddell wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:46:54PM +0100, Harald Sitter wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jonathan Riddell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:05:26PM +0100, Harald Sitter wrote: > > >> > As an exception where upstream bugs are due to be tracked until the > > >> > current release is out they can be filed, linked to upstream, tagged > > >> > ''kubuntu'' and milestoned to the next release.> >> > > >> What is the benefit of that? > > > > > > So that bugs which need to be tracked for the release can be easily > > > tracked.> > > But what is the benefit of us tracking bugs we cannot do anything > > about? And that being said, which bugs would be considered > > trackworthy? And assuming the bugs do not get fixed upstream in time, > > what do we do? > > Anything which is important enough to be worked on or release noted > should be tracked. If we don't fix it we release note them. But we > can't just pretend we have no bugs that affect a significent number of > users and point upstream, we always have some that users need to know about.
Shouldn't they then be tracked as release note tasks/bugs? HS -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
