Closing bugs UPSTREAM

Willem Riede wrrhdev at riede.org
Sun Feb 22 14:41:06 UTC 2004


On 2004.02.22 09:07, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> 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)).
> 
> So what I want to achieve is to avoid this ambiguity.

And what if it gets fixed the next day upstream? You expect every bug
owner to follow that and requalify the local bug? A lot of work for
very little value, I'd say.

I think it is OK if UPSTREAM is used to mean "I won't do anything about
this bug myself, it is reported to the upstream bug database, and if and
when they fix it, it will eventually propagate into a next release".

If the bug is serious enough to warrant that a specific test for it
is done during QA of new releases, then when the fix is confirmed, 
change status to CURRENTRELEASE.

Closing bugs means (local) work on it stops. Closing UPSTREAM means that
you need to go look in that bug database to see what the real status is.
What's the problem?

Regards, Willem Riede.





More information about the devel mailing list