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 thi
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 sc
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
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Hello,
right now, both upstream bugs and LFS-specific issues would show up as
"defects" in Trac. I would like to view them separately. Is it OK for me
in the future to add the "upstream" keyword to bugs that are not
LFS-specific? Or is some other way of marking su
Hello,
right now, both upstream bugs and LFS-specific issues would show up as
"defects" in Trac. I would like to view them separately. Is it OK for me
in the future to add the "upstream" keyword to bugs that are not
LFS-specific? Or is some other way of marking such issues actually
preferred?
