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. POST is kind of problematic as different groups use it for different meanings. anaconda use it to mean 'a patch has been sent to anaconda-devel-list for review', for e.g. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
