Kubuntu Policies (for council consideration)

[Harald Sitter]

On Wednesday 26 February 2014 09:51:24 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:46:54PM +0100, Harald Sitter wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:05:26PM +0100, Harald Sitter wrote:
> > >> > As an exception where upstream bugs are due to be tracked until the
> > >> > current release is out they can be filed, linked to upstream, tagged
> > >> > ''kubuntu'' and milestoned to the next release.> >> 
> > >> What is the benefit of that?
> > > 
> > > So that bugs which need to be tracked for the release can be easily
> > > tracked.> 
> > But what is the benefit of us tracking bugs we cannot do anything
> > about? And that being said, which bugs would be considered
> > trackworthy? And assuming the bugs do not get fixed upstream in time,
> > what do we do?
> 
> Anything which is important enough to be worked on or release noted
> should be tracked.  If we don't fix it we release note them.  But we
> can't just pretend we have no bugs that affect a significent number of
> users and point upstream, we always have some that users need to know about.

Shouldn't they then be tracked as release note tasks/bugs?

HS