Requesting a change to the BugStatusWorkFlow: Closed/UPSTREAM

[David Tardon]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:33:29PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:31:44PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > For the record, I am referencing
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED
> > 
> > Currently, the official bug lifecycle includes the following phrase:
> > "The resolution UPSTREAM can be used by maintainers to denote a bug that
> > they expect to be fixed by upstream development and naturally rolled
> > back into Fedora as part of the update process. Ideally, a comment
> > should be added with a link to the upstream bug report."
> > 
> > I've seen quite a few bugs lately closed with this resolution (mostly in
> > the Evolution and GNOME projects for me personally). It seems to me that
> > this is terribly useless in terms of informing users when their bugs are
> > fixed.
> > 
> > Essentially, when closing this bug as UPSTREAM, we are communicating to
> > our users "This will get fixed. Probably. And it will get pulled into
> > Fedora eventually. Probably." Most people, when they can actually be
> > convinced to file a real bug report (even through ABRT), are doing so
> > because they have an issue with the software and want to know when it's
> > fixed.
> 
> I was all set to disagree with you, but I think your analysis of the
> text on that wiki page is spot on.
> 
> That's not how _I_ use CLOSED -> UPSTREAM.  I use it to indicate that
> the bug *has been fixed* upstream.  And if I'm feeling conscientious I
> also add the version number where the fix (is/will) appear.  This
> should mean the user just needs to wait for the updated version to
> appear in Fedora, and won't need to track upstream closely.

So it seems we are in agreement on this, after all :-)

D.