Quoting Simon McVittie (2025-02-01 14:21:38) > On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 at 13:13:32 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > > Bug-Upstream: > > https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/lazarus/lazarus/-/issues/41378 > > I believe the intended DEP-3 syntax for this is: > > Bug: https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/lazarus/lazarus/-/issues/41378 > > so using that instead of Bug-Upstream might help? > > My understanding is that the Bug-<vendor> convention is intended > for other downstreams, which might be Debian, a Debian derivative like > Ubuntu, or sometimes an unrelated downstream like Fedora that has provided > useful/relevant information in their record of the equivalent bug.
Agreed that *ideally* an URI for the forwarded bug is provided. But does the omission *invalidate* the data points of "yes, it has been forwarded somewhere not mentioned, and has also been forwarded to some downstream confusingly labelled "Upstream"? I suggest to go ahead and file a bug against the service, suggesting to clarify (e.g. using a hover string) what causes an invalidation, and also to choose a different keyword (e.g. "ambiguous" or "weak") when strictly speaking it is not invalid per the spec but just somehow not ideal. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
