On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:33:29PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > 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. So it seems we are in agreement on this, after all :-) D. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
