On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:40 +0100
From: Leonard den Ottolander <leonard(a)den.ottolander.nl>
To: Fedora Devel List <fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
List-Id: Development discussions related to Fedora Core
<fedora-devel-list.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Closing bugs UPSTREAM
Hi Marc,
> I'm trying to figure out what you think doing it this way would achieve
> ... I may be missing something here, you know :-)
Closing bugs as UPSTREAM is ambiguous if you close both bugs that are
fixed and not yet fixed upstream. That is why I think the tag UPSTREAM
should be reserved for bugs that have not yet been fixed (upstream), and
thus need tracking upstream.
Bugs that are already fixed upstream and for which patches flow back
into the distro can be tagged as CURRENTRELEASE (or NEXTRELEASE if the
patch only gets applied in the next release (currently FC 2)).
The current release is Fedora Core 1, so closing a bug
CURRENTRELEASE that is not fixed in Fedora Core 1, is incorrect.
If a bug is flagged UPSTREAM, and is fixed upstream, then it is
valid to reopen it IMHO. Then if the bug is too late in the
development cycle to consider, or if the developer has no time to
investigate the upstream fix right away, DEFERRED or NEXTRELEASE
or some other status change is more appropriate.
--
Mike A. Harris
ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat