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

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:31 -0500, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> 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.  

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. That's what Bugzilla does not provide,
and Launchpad does. Sorry if this wasn't clear.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net