Closing bugs UPSTREAM

Mike A. Harris mharris at redhat.com
Sun Feb 22 14:42:33 UTC 2004


On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:

>Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:40 +0100
>From: Leonard den Ottolander <leonard at den.ottolander.nl>
>To: Fedora Devel List <fedora-devel-list at redhat.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain
>List-Id: Development discussions related to Fedora Core
>    <fedora-devel-list.redhat.com>
>Subject: Re: Closing bugs UPSTREAM
>
>Hi Marc,
>
>> 	I'm trying to figure out what you think doing it this way would achieve
>> ... I may be missing something here, you know :-)
>
>Closing bugs as UPSTREAM is ambiguous if you close both bugs that are
>fixed and not yet fixed upstream. That is why I think the tag UPSTREAM
>should be reserved for bugs that have not yet been fixed (upstream), and
>thus need tracking upstream.
>
>Bugs that are already fixed upstream and for which patches flow back
>into the distro can be tagged as CURRENTRELEASE (or NEXTRELEASE if the
>patch only gets applied in the next release (currently FC 2)).

The current release is Fedora Core 1, so closing a bug 
CURRENTRELEASE that is not fixed in Fedora Core 1, is incorrect.

If a bug is flagged UPSTREAM, and is fixed upstream, then it is 
valid to reopen it IMHO.  Then if the bug is too late in the 
development cycle to consider, or if the developer has no time to 
investigate the upstream fix right away, DEFERRED or NEXTRELEASE 
or some other status change is more appropriate.



-- 
Mike A. Harris     ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list