Requesting a change to the BugStatusWorkFlow: Closed/UPSTREAM

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 08:04 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> ----- 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 :)


A bigger problem would be that this claimed approach is not documented
anywhere that anyone could find (short of digging through old mailing
list archives).

It seems to me that what we're looking at here is more of "NEEDSINFO:
upstream" than any kind of CLOSED status. I think the bug should stay
open as ASSIGNED and that the maintainer should be responsible for
occasionally reporting back progress made on the upstream bug.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120120/3fd2792a/attachment-0001.sig>