Bugging questions

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:32:30PM +1200, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Right, that came up in a recent discussion of bug watches. Matt wants 
> it to be possible to say "this belongs to upstream" without seeing 
> whether it actually is reported upstream; in that case, "Escalated" 
> would be misleading.

What I really want is for Launchpad to accelerate the process of passing
bugs upstream by email, so that we never need to mark a bug upstream without
actually informing upstream at the same time.

> 2.  A bug about Rosetta language charts being unusable in Ubuntu's
>      emacs-w3m turns out to be a layout bug in w3m. Nobody is going to
>      fix it specially for Ubuntu, and w3m upstream doesn't even *have* a
>      bug tracker, but we can work around it in Rosetta. Rosetta status:
>      Confirmed. w3m status: not recorded. Ubuntu w3m status: Not For Us.

We should never refuse to forward bugs upstream just because upstream
doesn't have a bug tracking system (or because Launchpad doesn't know how to
talk to it).

> 3.  It's three weeks before the release of Edgy. A bug reported about
>      the Ubuntu Installer was initially accepted for fixing in Edgy, but
>      now it's too late, so it's deferred. Ubuntu ubuntu-installer
>      status: Confirmed. Ubuntu Edgy ubuntu-installer status: Not For Us.

I find the UI here to be confusing, and so do our users.  It seems
unintuitive to have a list which includes both distributions and releases;
it's unclear what this should mean to the user.  What does the status of the
'Ubuntu' task mean?  If it's the status in the current development release,
then it should say the name of the release instead.  If it means something
else, then what?

> 5.  Firefox (imagining for the moment that Mozilla uses Malone) doesn't
>      have proper title bar icons in Windows 95/98. It's a valid bug with
>      a known fix, but Mozilla's never going to fix it, and there are no
>      other packagers. Firefox status: Not For Us. No other statuses.
> 
> "Won't Fix Here", "Disavowed", and "Not For Us" are the only 
> suggestions made so far that work for all these examples. (All those 
> mentioning "upstream" fail examples 3, 4, and 5; all those suggesting 
> that the bug has been forwarded somewhere else fail examples 3 and 5.) 
> And the former two have negative connotations, so I think "Not For Us" 
> may be teh winnar.

"Disavowed" has a connotation that the bug is invalid; I expect it would be
confused with "Rejected".  I see no problem with "Not for us", and I much
prefer it to "Won't Fix Here".

-- 
 - mdz