Launchpad bug statuses

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:54:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> 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?
> 
> There is some confusion here. Launchpad allows you to register a project
> and to indicate that it uses an external bugtracker. Firefox is one such
> example project (bug there are many):

I know that, and I have registered some external bug trackers to add bug
watches. And that's useful (although as everything in this live, it can
be improved). However, that's not what I was talking about. I was
replying to this:

> 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.

And that says (or at least I understand) that I don't need to add a
remote bug watch, but register the project in Launchpad, and then open a
task for it (without being a remote watch). Then *I* would be able to
change the status. That just adds a *lot* of work to the workflow, and
thus I disagree with it.


> 
>    https://edge.launchpad.net/firefox
> 
> We're not suggesting having an additional Firefox bug tracker in
> Launchpad, but instead, just knowing that Firefox uses b.m.o.

Yes, I agree with you, but I wasn't talking about that :-)

-------------- 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/20071003/415ecf6f/attachment-0001.pgp