Bugging questions

Matthew Paul Thomas mpt at canonical.com
Thu Apr 27 10:56:15 BST 2006

Hash: SHA1

On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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".
> ...
>> 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.
> ...

That's exactly what it would mean -- the only way Ubuntu would get the 
bugfix would be by packaging an upstream release that contained it.

Do you really also want a status for "we'll accept a patch from 
upstream even if it's not part of a release"? (In that situation would 
you also accept a patch from an Ubuntu community member, one that 
applied cleanly to the Ubuntu package but not to upstream?) That seems 
like it would be Low/Trivial importance, rather than a status.

If you do want such a status, what would you call it? :-)

- -- 
Matthew Paul Thomas
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)


More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list