Launchpad bug statuses

[Forest Bond]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:18:05AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007 16:50, Forest Bond wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:14:34PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > > * "Fix Committed (Please Test My Fix)"
> > >
> > > The status is used by the some teams to mark bugs which have been fixed
> > > upstream since it makes easier to review bugs that have a patch to
> > > backport or should be closed when the next version is uploaded
> >
> > Isn't the correct way to handle this to add the upstream project to
> > launchpad and set the bug so that it also affects upstream?  Then you can
> > be explicit about the bug's status upstream.
> >
> > This came up recently here:
> >
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/newt/+bug/54555
> >
> > -Forest
> 
> Who is going to add upstream projects for the thousands of packages in Ubuntu?
> I don't imagine this approach is very scalable.  
> 
> If some teams are using the status this way, I don't think the right answer is
> to say, "No, you should do it this way that's more work."

It just needs to be made easier to add placeholder upstream projects.  These
should be created implicitly when marking a bug as affecting upstream.  I
understand this feature is being worked on.  Right?

Abusing bug statii to mean things that they don't goes against the grain of LP's
data model.  This makes LP's data less useful.

Note, however, that I certainly don't speak for the LP folks.  I'm just an
interested by-stander. :)

-Forest
-- 
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20071003/2d273602/attachment.pgp