On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Andre Klapper <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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. > > It already unclear to me what setting this keyword implies: > That the person setting the keyword should also take care of forwarding > it to upstream? That the person is also responsible to keep it in sync? > Or just wishful thinking that somebody else will hopefully do that? > I try to make sure I've at least filed or found a bug report in the upstream tracker, subscribed to it there, and referenced it on our bug when applying the 'upstream' keyword. There's not really a standard for where to put a link to the upstream, but you'll usually find them in either: * the URL link field in bugzilla * in a comment * very occasionally, in "related bugs" Since the URL link on the bug may be needed for a demonstration of the bug, just putting it in a comment is the most consistent thing to do I think. I also sometimes reference our bug on the upstream tracker, which a) says "hey MediaWiki/Wikipedia needs this fix pls!" and b) may encourage folks on that side to contact us if we forget to follow the bug. ;) If we have anything marked 'upstream' where we *don't* have a visible upstream bug report, we should fix those. :) I kinda like the idea of a resolution instead of a keyword, as that simplifies the question of what to resolve as (open? later? something else?) but the keyword works for now. This should be covered by a triage guide to be written. > +1 -- brion _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
