On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:31:44PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > For the record, I am referencing > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED > > Currently, the official bug lifecycle includes the following phrase: > "The resolution UPSTREAM can be used by maintainers to denote a bug that > they expect to be fixed by upstream development and naturally rolled > back into Fedora as part of the update process. Ideally, a comment > should be added with a link to the upstream bug report." > > I've seen quite a few bugs lately closed with this resolution (mostly in > the Evolution and GNOME projects for me personally). It seems to me that > this is terribly useless in terms of informing users when their bugs are > fixed. > > 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. I was all set to disagree with you, but I think your analysis of the text on that wiki page is spot on. That's not how _I_ use CLOSED -> UPSTREAM. I use it to indicate that the bug *has been fixed* upstream. And if I'm feeling conscientious I also add the version number where the fix (is/will) appear. This should mean the user just needs to wait for the updated version to appear in Fedora, and won't need to track upstream closely. I think the text on the wiki page ought to be changed. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
