Requesting a change to the BugStatusWorkFlow: Closed/UPSTREAM

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 09:30 +0000, Tim Waugh wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 08:39 +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > > I use closed/upstream, when I already fixed it in upstream. This
> > > bug
> > > should be closed with number of release, where it is fixed or
> > > with the
> > > link to the commit. I wouldn't blame this state for not fixing
> > > bug in
> > > some projects. I guess instead of closed/upstream we would see
> > > more
> > > closed/wontfix|cantfix.
> > 
> > I use POST for that.
> > 
> > "A patch or solution believed to resolve this matter has been
> > proposed
> > (POSTed) for inclusion in the package or kernel."
> > 
> > For non-kernel packages I read that as meaning that the patch is
> > in-hand
> > upstream, and not yet built in Fedora.
> 
> 
> That's certainly one reasonable approach to this specific case,
> provided
> that we
> A) Document this interpretation more clearly.
> B) Comment in the bug that the patch is committed upstream and will
> be
> available when the equivalent upstream release arrives.

We already had this discussion, I don't recall exactly - two years ago
and the resolution was similar - rename CLOSED UPSTREAM to HOLD UPSTREAM.
I can try to find it :) As it's usually used this way - bug is reported
to upstream (by reporter, us in case he does not have account or is not
willing to do it), then the bug can bounce between Fedora/upstream (you
know, everyone has to blame other side or sometimes it's not easy to 
say who to blame ;-). And the bug is actually not fixed in Fedora until
we receive fix - then it can go to some CLOSED RAWHIDE/NEXTRELEASE state.

The biggest problem here is just - some people misuse this CLOSED UPSTREAM
as we don't care in Fedora. And they would use another CLOSED resolution
to close the bug :)

R.

> 
> I still think that the more ideal solution though is to keep the bug
> open until a package actually hits Fedora with that fix in it (be it
> an
> updated version or a cherry-picked patch). This way it's clear to the
> user exactly when they can expect a fix.
> 
> Bonus: it tells users when a Bodhi update is available that will
> address
> their issue. This encourages more users to test. I've certainly
> noticed
> a marked increase in bodhi karma activity on my updates that have
> more
> bugs marked as addressed vs. those updates that just pull in a new
> upstream version without any Fedora-specific bugs reported.
> 
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel