Launchpad bug statuses

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007 16:50, Forest Bond wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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.

That is only correct for use a remote bug tracker. It doesn't make sense
to me to have an *upstream* bug tracker in Launchpad if the *real*
upstream has a different bug tracker.

>>
>> 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.  

I agree with that. It doesn't look valid for thousands of packages, but
even for one I don't think it's Ok. Not because of the work, but why
should we have an upstream bug tracker if we aren't upstream?

> 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."
> 
> Scott K
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20071003/e20403c9/attachment-0001.pgp