Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] tracking bugs superseded by blueprints

2015-02-24 Thread Aleksey Kasatkin
I think it is better to keep such bugs open. Please see https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/granular-network-functions . There are some related bugs here. One is fixed, another one is in progress, two are closed. If bug is strictly coherent with blueprint (like

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] tracking bugs superseded by blueprints

2015-02-23 Thread Mike Scherbakov
Bogdan, I think we should keep bugs open and not supersed them by blueprint. I see following reasons for it. Often, we can find workaround in order to fix the bug. Even if bug naturally seems to be falling into some blueprint's scope. Then problem is that when you close the bug, you don't even

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] tracking bugs superseded by blueprints

2015-02-18 Thread Andrew Woodward
Bogdan, Yes I think tracking the bugs like this would be beneficial. We should also link them from the BP so that the imperilmenter can track them. It adds related blueprints in the bottom of the right column under the subscribers so we probably should also edit the description so that the data

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] tracking bugs superseded by blueprints

2015-02-18 Thread Bogdan Dobrelya
Hello. There is inconsistency in the triage process for Fuel bugs superseded by blueprints. The current approach is to set won't fix status for such bugs. But there are some cases we should clarify [0], [1]. I vote to not track superseded bugs separately and keep them as won't fix but update the