On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > It should be possible. I see one problem here though. Bug-Gnome is really > > "Bug" because it's the upstream bug. While we can have an URL mapping for > > each vendor, it's not possible for the non-qualified entry used for the > > upstream case. > > I don’t think one of these entries should be qualified as “the” > canonical upstream bug. > > When I forward a bug to epiphany, if I add a Bug: pointing to GNOME, > later it can be forwarded by them to Mozilla/Webkit because the patch > turns out to be a workaround for a bug in the engine. That would make > suddenly the Bug field turn into a Bug-GNOME, and a new Bug field would > be introduced, pointing to Mozilla/Webkit?
No, the patch is against epiphany even if it's a work-around for a mozilla/webkit bug (so it's always "Bug"). You could add a Bug-Mozilla: if you wanted but I don't see that as a necessity. The (epiphany|upstream) bug entry will already contain that information in most cases. > I think it’s bad design to rely on too much expectations based on a > particular case. The only thing that’s generic is that patches are > related to bugs that can lie in various trackers. And a patch applies to a particular software. That software is what we consider as "upstream" compared to us. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
