Status "FixCommited" for ubuntu-tasks

[Charlie Kravetz]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:21:07 +0200
Andreas Moog <andreas.moog at warperbbs.de> wrote:

> Hello Bugsquad,
> 
> i had a short discussion today in #ubuntu-bugs about when to set the
> status of an ubuntu-task to "FixCommited". I used this status to
> indicate that a patch was commited in upstream's svn/cvs/git/$whatever
> so that one could easily find what reports could be closed by a
> package-update.
> 
> Another opinion on "FixCommited" was that it should only be used when
> a package with this patch is in -proposed OR uploaded and waiting to
> be accepted.
> 
> If the latter is the majority opinion here, we should discuss having a
> new status in malone, e.g. called "FixedUpstream" to easily spot
> already fixed bugs.
> 
> Thanks for your opinion.
> 

I have used "Fixcommitted"when the fix in is in any -proposed or svn.
I thought that was correct status per previous discussions about this.
If this is incorrect, then I feel strongly a status needs to be added
for those bugs which are simply sitting waiting for the upstream fix to
get to Ubuntu. It seems a bit out of place to have these sitting in
confirmed/incomplete status when the fix is out there. 

Any of these bugs forwarded upstream may or may not have the upstream
status updated, depending on whether or not the upstream updates are
working at the time. Many of the bugs that are forwarded are left in
unknown status against the project because the automatic updates do not
work. That leaves the bugsquad members to do a lot of manual tracking
for themselves so as to not have to keep looking up status on bugs that
should be "FixCommitted". Obviously, if the fix is upstream, it is
going to make it into Ubuntu, even if it is in the next version. Not
using "FixCommitted" for Ubuntu makes it much harder to triage the bugs.

-- 
Charlie Kravetz 
Linux Registered User Number 425914          [http://counter.li.org/]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.           [http://keepingdreams.com]