Re: divergence from upstream as a bug
Mike Hommey <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 02:50:33PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Also, these aren't bugs in the Debian package, but rather bugs in
>> upstream (at least arguably), which put them into a different
>> brainspace than Debian bugs at least for me, and I'd find it awkward
>> and confusing to have them mixed in with Debian package bugs.
> We already have upstream bugs in the BTS, and there is even a tag to
> mark them as such.
Those are *also* bugs in the Debian package. Those are, in other words,
bugs that I might go fix if I have the time (or backport a fix for, or
package a new version of upstream for, in the case of fixed-upstream
bugs). Whereas these are bugs that I've *already* fixed, but which
haven't yet been merged, which to me are rather different.
I do agree that the BTS is capable of tracking such things (archived and
closed bugs, for example) and keeping them out of the same view, but I
guess I wonder whether the BTS is really the right tool to use to create a
separate view for patches. The version tracking is similar, although the
bug ends up in yet another state when upstream has merged but a new
package hasn't been unloaded yet. The process by which the patches are
updated for new versions of the Debian package is, however, very
different, in that normally bugs aren't updated at all -- they're either
fixed or still present.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>