mdz at canonical.com
Thu Apr 27 15:51:56 BST 2006
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:54:57PM +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.
I'm glad that a new status has your support, but I'm not so sure about the
name. It is a difficult idea to express in a very short status, to be
certain, but I fear that most casual users will interpret "Won't Fix Here"
as "Won't Fix", which is not the right idea.
How about something like "Passed" or "Forwarded"?
More information about the ubuntu-devel