On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:30:34 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:47:27PM +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
> > 2.3. Upstream issues
> > Do not close a bug (as RESOLVED/UPSTREAM) until it is fixed by
> > upstream.
If the reason you propose this is visibility, then maybe we should make
the quicksearch option include more than just open bugs. I've thought
about having UPSTREAM/DUPLICATE/INVALID added so that bugzilla users
can more easily discover whether a bug was already reported and was
deemed fixed, a duplicate of another bug or canonically invalid.
> This implies that the upstream is alive enough to fix it.
>
> I feel it should mean that the bug has been reported to upstream, and
> that state is documented in the bug.
>
> If we keep every upstream bug open instead of closed, we'd have
> probably another 2500 open bugs (5312 RESO/UPSTREAM in the history of
> Gentoo, and I'm ballparking that 50% aren't actually fixed yet
> upstream).
Quoting [1]:
UPSTREAM
It is not suitable to deal with the bug at this level, and the bug
should be taken to the upstream developers for resolution.
It all depends on the kind of bug. Requests for new features should
probably normally go upstream (including the kind where a patch is
available). That's out of our scope. With the above proposal, feature
request bugs like bug #171277 [2] might not go unnoticed as easily. In
the case of app-misc/screen, upstream did seem dead for a couple of
years, and even now after many new features were added (including
vertical split) and bug fixes were included there, there is still no
new version out. I guess that bug is still not marked UPSTREAM just to
aid in its visibility - after the bug was reopened, no more
duplicates were filed.
jer
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#resolution
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171277
