Requesting a change to the BugStatusWorkFlow: Closed/UPSTREAM

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 07:42 +0100, David Tardon wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:27:10PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 08:16:31AM +0100, David Tardon wrote:
> > > The libreoffice team uses this resolution for
> > > 
> > > 1) bugs that are not reproducible, but we _think_ we know what is the
> > > cause (these are mostly "fire and forget" abrt bugs, where we managed to
> > > get something useful from the backtrace)
> > 
> > CLOSED -> WORKSFORME or INSUFFICIENT_DATA
> > 
> > > 2) bugs that only appear under very specific conditions and are unlikely
> > > to affect many users.
> > 
> > CLOSED -> CANTFIX or WONTFIX
> > 
> > I don't think CLOSED -> UPSTREAM is a good resolution for either of
> > these classes of unfixed bugs.
> 
> It seems I was not clear enough--I spoke about bugs we _fixed_ in
> upstream, but did not backport the fixes into Fedora. But, well, I do
> not really care so much--I will roll a die the next time I am not sure
> which resolution to pick...

It's worth noting, as a meta-point to this discussion, that it really
doesn't matter a *huge* deal what resolution you pick. The data isn't
used for a whole lot. I think, really, the only time we ever really use
the resolution information is in random one-shot statistical analyses
people do sometimes, like the X Test Week stats I post each cycle.

We discussed this proposal at QA meeting today. We have no huge
objection to the change, nor do we think it's a fantastic idea, really
the response was 'meh'. My take on it is that if a developer wants a bug
closed, they're probably going to close the bug. Taking away a
resolution will only mean they'll pick a different one.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net