On 4/27/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Matt Zimmerman</b> <<a href="mailto:mdz@canonical.com">mdz@canonical.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:54:57PM +1200, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:<br>> On Apr 27, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:<br>> > ...<br>> > I'm not sure what you mean by 'tag', here, but if you mean 'status',
<br>> > then I think I may agree. There is something to be said for being<br>> > able to mark a task to say "this won't be fixed here directly, but it<br>> > has been passed further upstream and the fix (if any) will be
<br>> > incorporated".<br>> ><br>> > I know we want to avoid having too many status values, but this would<br>> > avoid giving the impression that the bug report was refused, when in<br>> > fact it was accepted and passed on.
<br>> > ...<br>><br>> Right, that's what "Won't Fix Here" will be for.<br><br>I'm glad that a new status has your support, but I'm not so sure about the<br>name. It is a difficult idea to express in a very short status, to be
<br>certain, but I fear that most casual users will interpret "Won't Fix Here"<br>as "Won't Fix", which is not the right idea.<br><br>How about something like "Passed" or "Forwarded"?
<br><br></blockquote></div><br>Promoted<br>Superceeded<br>Upstreamed? =)<br>Elevated<br>Progressed<br>etc.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>--- The White Mink ---