----- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
