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

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 15:02 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 02:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >
> > If your "unworthy bug" doesn't cause malfunctions, you could easily
> > close it "WONTFIX" and add a comment.
> 
> Why do you advocate WONTFIX over FIXED RAWHIDE?  The latter seems the
> more accurate status considering that I did fix it in Rawhide.

That's what the policy currently recommends, but I can see the converse
argument. My thinking in drafting the life cycle was broadly that the
point of the bug report is to track the resolution of a single problem
in a single release; the fact that a fix is in Rawhide means nothing to
the release against which the bug was filed. The resolution of the issue
in the release against which it was filed is that you intentionally did
not fix it: hence WONTFIX.

Again, we could change this if sufficient people seem to think it makes
more sense the other way. This is ultimately yet another manifestation
of the inherent problems Bugzilla has with tracking multiple components
of multiple distribution releases (it doesn't have sufficient
granularity to allow this in any particularly good way).

An alternative is to change the version to Rawhide and then you can use
CLOSED RAWHIDE. You should usually have the reporter's agreement before
doing this, though.

Once again I note that Launchpad handles this noticeably better than
Bugzilla.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net