Loiosh dé Taltos
loiosh at gmail.com
Thu Apr 27 16:11:13 BST 2006
On 4/27/06, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at canonical.com> wrote:
> 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"?
--- The White Mink ---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-devel