Bugging questions

Daniel Robitaille robitaille at gmail.com
Wed Apr 26 21:37:13 BST 2006

On 4/26/06, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 04:12:00PM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 09:52:29AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Agreed 100%.  If we are to benefit from forwarding bugs upstream, we need to
> > > be able to filter out bugs that have been passed on.
> > >
> > > What should this look like, though?  From which reports should they be
> > > excluded?
> >
> > It could just be an advanced option. Perhaps something like:
> >
> >     [ ] Exclude bugs that have an open upstream status
> >
> > or
> >
> >     [ ] Exclude bugs that are pending upstream work
> >
> > that would be displayed in distribution context only.
> Certainly there should be such an option in the advanced search; however,
> shouldn't it also be possible to use this information to make the existing
> pre-cooked reports more useful as well?  In general, if we've passed on
> responsibility for a bug, it shouldn't show up on our todo lists anymore.

I hate to propose a new tag, but wouldn't an UPSTREAM tag make sense? 
If you mark your  task as upstream, then it's an easy way to show that
you have passed the responsibility in your specific task to somewhere
else and there is nothing you can do until that somewhere else has
done something.

That somewhere else may be visible via an upstream task in LP, or may
very well not be visible in LP.  For the later I'm thinking of a
situation wherere let's say you have sent an email  to the upstream
authors, and they have acknowledged the problem/bug/wish, but LP is
not tracking their BTS (if they even have one...).

Then tasks marked with that upstream tag would be excluded from the
default search results, but would still be accessible via the advanced

Daniel Robitaille

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list