Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > 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. > > Closing things upstream requires that the reporters (who already likely > had to be coaxed to file a bug in the first place) now also have to > manually choose to go and create an account on an unrelated bug tracker > if they want to follow along on the resolution of the issue. In some cases, this *is* the most appropriate resolution, though. For example, I get the occasional RFE, or request for a behavior/appearance change, or even for some bugfix that requires rewriting an entire subsystem of a package. In that case, I will likely open up a bug upstream, and close the Fedora bug, because it is really not up to me at all when, or *if*, such a bug gets fixed; as a downstream maintainer, I'm not going to put changes of that sort into Fedora alone, and upstream may very well decide not to do it. For the hypothetical bug I might get of 'port GnuCash to GTK 3', I don't see why a simple CLOSED->UPSTREAM is wrong. (Unless you'd prefer CLOSED->WONTFIX, as I'm not fixing that myself...) Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
