>> Niklas Laxström <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2 July 2012 17:55, Chad <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Niklas Laxström >> <[email protected]> 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.
I just used that keyword on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38114 to say "can be fixed upstream, no bug filed yet", and, in this case "not a local customization or configuration change". Real bug URL should be added when this is filed. There is another small problem with "See also" field: it currently accepts are pretty limited set of bugtrackers. See disussion under https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577847 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735196 for example how this is handled within current Bugzilla development. //Saper _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
