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. 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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
