Status "FixCommited" for ubuntu-tasks

[Charlie Kravetz]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:25:06 +0300
"Murat Gunes" <mgunes at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:33 +0100, "Max Bowsher" <maxb at f2s.com> wrote:
> 
> > I don't think a fix upstream should qualify an ubuntu-task for "Fix
> > Committed", because it's an indication of the amount of work
> > remaining
> > - "Fix Committed" implies that the fix will arrive with no further
> >   development work, just releasing/uploading. Whereas, integrating a
> >   new upstream version may require lots of packaging work, or be
> >   impossible during a freeze.
> 
> Agreed; it's best to keep the status as "Triaged". That means the the
> report has been evaluated and there's nothing more to be done by the
> reporter or triager, but there's still work to be done by a developer.
> 
> Another point is that the presence of a fix somewhere in the upstream
> VCS does not necessarily mean that it will be included in the upstream
> release, which will in turn end up in Ubuntu. Further changes may
> occur that can revert or modify the fix, or there may be independent
> patches (such as in Debian) that interfere with it or revert it. The
> logic of using "Fix Committed" in accordance with its literal meaning
> can also be extended to mean that a fix has been committed anywhere
> in the VCS (such as an independent branch), which again will
> complicate things.
> 
> > > 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.
> >
> > Surely the canonical way to describe that in Malone is with an
> > upstream bugtask?
> >
> > Duplicating the ways in which you can represent that information
> > seems like it could get messy.
> 
> The combination of "Fix Released" upstream and "Triaged" in Ubuntu
> should be enough to indicate that the fix is set to land in Ubuntu.
> 
> m.
> 

While I can agree with this logic, what do you do when the upstream
report does not update in launchpad? There are many bugs with upstream
projects attached, that become fixed upstream but never get a launchpad
update. They also become fix-released in launchpad without the upstream
bug having been updated beyond "unknown". I, personnally, find I must
maintain some type of personal list to know which bugs have actually
been worked upstream because of this issue. Not being able to move the
Ubuntu bug to fix-committed does double the work I must do to find out
if the upstream bug has indeed been fixed. It also increases the
workload for the developers if they must go and look upstream for
status. 

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of even having the upstream project?


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