On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 08:16 +0100, David Tardon 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. > > The libreoffice team uses this resolution for > > 1) bugs that are not reproducible, but we _think_ we know what is the > cause (these are mostly "fire and forget" abrt bugs, where we managed to > get something useful from the backtrace) That says to me "CLOSED/INSUFFICIENT_DATA" or, if you actually suspect you have a fix, it should remain open until the fix is committed upstream. I think I can agree that CLOSED/UPSTREAM is reasonable for fixes that are already committed upstream. > > 2) bugs that only appear under very specific conditions and are unlikely > to affect many users. That's CLOSED/WONTFIX.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
