[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Processed: Tagging as upstream problem

On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:22:34PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Hamish Moffat:
> > Matthias Urlichs:
> > > Tags added: upstream
> >
> > That seems a bit unnecessary given that the bug is already forwarded
> > upstream. If it helps out some report somewhere I suggest making that
> > report more intelligent...
> "Forwarded" just says that the report has been forwarded to upstream.
> IMHO, it doesn't actually say that the problem is an upstream problem.

I don't really agree. I wouldn't have forwarded the problem upstream if
it wasn't an upstream problem. If it turns out that it isn't an upstream
problem, I would remove the upstream status.

Actually I'm not sure why the upstream tag even exists. The existing 
upstream handling is a superset, because it records the address to which
the report was forwarded.

Similarly I just noticed that NMU-fixed bugs get tagged fixed now
by ftp.d.o scripts instead of using the 'fixed' severity level.
Have we gone tag crazy?

> So the general question is: should forwarding a bug auto-set the Upstream bit?
> Alternately, should the RC bug report flag a bug with 'F' if it has been 
> forwarded?

I think the report should deal with it. I don't see the need to use the
upstream tag; I've been using the old upstream method for years.

> My point is that the RC bug report list should show at a glance whether it 
> makes sense to open a bug to check whether work by <insert random DD, or in 
> my case prospective DD, who wants to help fix RC bugs> might be helpful.

I agree. Let's fix the report rather than changing all the bug reports.

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Reply to: