Status "FixCommited" for ubuntu-tasks

Max Bowsher maxb at
Wed Apr 15 00:33:00 BST 2009

Andreas Moog 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.

My understanding, based on, is that
the current policy is somewhere between the two: The status of a
ubuntu-task should not have anything to do with upstream (upstream is,
after all, not Ubuntu), but on the other hand it is not required for the
package to be in -proposed or the queue - having the fix in the
package's version control system, or if it doesn't have one, commitment
 from some ubuntu-dev person that they have a fix and intend it to be in
the next upload is good enough for "Fix Committed".

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.

> 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

Duplicating the ways in which you can represent that information seems
like it could get messy.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : 

More information about the Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list