Proposing to adapt bug watch policies

[Charlie Kravetz]

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 22:58:25 +0100
Sense Hofstede <qense at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Forwarding upstream costs time and requires knowledge of the upstream
> bug tracker. It would be much easier if triagers could just mark a bug
> as needing forwarding upstream and don't have to interrupt their
> work-flow. This can already be done; Launchpad has got useful flags[1]
> you can use to find out what bugs have empty bug watches.
> 
> However, the documentation doesn't seem to talk about adding empty bug
> watches at all. I do think that this possibility is something that be
> very helpful to bug triagers and have therefore made it a part of the
> AdoptionTeam's structure[2].
> 
> Wouldn't it be good to (also) make this a part of the default bug
> triaging process? I'd suggest to modify the explanation for moving
> bugs to 'Confirmed'[3] to include adding an empty bug watch when the
> cause has been determined. This would allow people that know how to
> forward upstream to search for empty bug watches and fill those, also
> making the live of the forwarders in AdoptionTeams a lot easier.
> 
> Possible downside: this would increase clutter in the task lists and
> the projects for the upstream bug trackers on Launchpad since that
> would start gathering a lot more bug reports without an upstream link.
> 
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status_upstream=pending_bugwatch&field.status_upstream-empty-marker=1
> [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/AdoptionTeam
> [3] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage#Confirming
> 
> Regards,

Responses already allows that in [4]. You just mark the upstream
project, leaving it without the url, and add the comment.

[4]
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#A%20bug%20that%20should%20be%20handled%20upstream



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