Bugging questions

[Scott James Remnant]

On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 17:54 +1200, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:

> On Apr 27, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > ...
> > I'm not sure what you mean by 'tag', here, but if you mean 'status', 
> > then I think I may agree.  There is something to be said for being 
> > able to mark a task to say "this won't be fixed here directly, but it 
> > has been passed further upstream and the fix (if any) will be 
> > incorporated".
> >
> > I know we want to avoid having too many status values, but this would 
> > avoid giving the impression that the bug report was refused, when in 
> > fact it was accepted and passed on.
> > ...
> 
> Right, that's what "Won't Fix Here" will be for.
> 
That's misleading, and to me would imply that Ubuntu wouldn't even
bother merging an upstream patch.

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott at ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060427/3743e1d4/attachment.pgp