Gerard Beekmans wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > >> The upstream keyword would certainly work. If Matt would like, you >> could also add either a new ticket type or a new component to reflect >> that the problem lies upstream. There's several ways to skin this cat. :) > > > And think about a scenario like this one: What do we do then when a > developer denies that the bug is upstream (it happens...sometimes > developers are too proud and will not admit a bug that is blatant in > their software). It wouldn't be LFS-specific but it can't be marked as > upstream if you want to keep on good terms with said developer.
If something were marked upstream, does it always imply "upstream defect"? Wouldn't it really imply "upstream issue". The writeup does not have to be adversarial, but just describe the issue. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
