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

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On 3/31/2010 14:18, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> I'm asking for a sketch of a policy that would do better at accurately
>> portraying what deficiencies are alive while still allowing
>> maintainers to efficiently track which issues they've resolved to
>> their satisfaction.
>
> I've thought about this quite a lot, at both MDV and Fedora, and come to
> the conclusion that it's simply not possible to do this with the current
> implementation of Bugzilla. There is no really satisfactory way to use
> Bugzilla to track issues across multiple distribution releases, that I
> can think of. It's not a question of a lack of a policy; we need
> improvements to Bugzilla, or a different tool. Launchpad provides a good
> model, in this regard (though it is not better than Bugzilla in all
> respects).

The nicest thing that something like Launchpad would provide is separate 
status tracking for each component and release that is affected.  That 
way bugs related to more than one package can easily be marked as such 
so they appear on all the right maintainers' radars, and package 
statuses can be related on a per-release basis.  Separate statuses for 
each part of a bug would make statuses more meaningful.  As an added 
bonus cloning becomes less necessary, too.