Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

[Yaakov Nemoy]

2010/3/29 Till Maas <opensource at till.name>:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:20:57PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> As a user, having been hit by a bug, "CLOSED UPSTREAM" is nothing but a
>> cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix
>> a bug having hit a user.
>>
>> In other words: "FIXED UPSTREAM" does not fix anything for the user
>> struggling with a bug. It only helps the packager to keep his bug
>> statistics clean.
>
> Yum related bugs are also closed with upstream, but still the Bodhi
> update details contain the bug number, once the update upstream package
> makes it's way into Fedora. Then everyone on the CC list of the Fedora
> bug will also not notified once the update is there. Except that these
> bugs do not show up in searches for open bugs, I do not see anything bad
> with this approach.

If you define the terminology around the actual process first, then
define the processes around good terminology, it's much easier to get
it right and not confuse people. Fitting the process and terminology
around someone else's design, and you run into trouble. I'm suggesting
we have clearer naming, so a search can be done both on open issues
that are waiting on upstream and a way to filter them out for people
looking for truely open bugs waiting on Fedora / Red Hat. In this case
the terminology is somewhat incorrect. The methodology sounds correct
to me too, i just suggest we name the statuses properly rather than
defining a special case of 'closed' that's counter intuitive and makes
people upset.

-Yaakov