Closing bugs UPSTREAM

[Mark McLoughlin]

Hi Leonard,

On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 19:18, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:

> > 	We want to work upstream as much as possible.
> 
> With this I firmly agree. But that does not mean that bugs that are
> fixed locally (ie by applying upstream patches or update releases)
> should be closed as UPSTREAM, because in relation to the distribution
> they are fixed CURRENTRELEASE.
> 
> Again, imo closing UPSTREAM should be restricted to issues that are not
> yet solved (upstream), thus cannot be solved CURRENTRELEASE (or
> whatever), and have to be tracked upstream. Solved issues that are back
> ported (or fixed by an update) do not fall into this category.

	As I said - I wouldn't have closed this particular bug as UPSTREAM
either. But I think we have different interpretations of what UPSTREAM
means.

	Effectively, closing UPSTREAM means "we don't think this bug is
important/serious enough to warrant tracking specifically for Fedora"[1]
- i.e. whenever it gets fixed upstream, and we pull that upstream
version into Fedora, then and only then will the bug be fixed in Fedora
... and we don't need to know exactly at what point the fix is pulled
into Fedora.

	So, in the case of this bug - I would have left it open and made sure
it was either fixed in an FC1 update or Raw Hide. Why? Because its a
fairly embarassing bug which is easy to fix. My decision to not close it
UPSTREAM would have had nothing to do with whether or not it was already
fixed upstream.

	The only thing I think you could hope to achieve by doing things the
way you suggest is that when we release an update we would have a nice
list of every bugzilla.redhat.com bug which was fixed in that update.
But bear in mind - for us to achieve that, for every bug closed
UPSTREAM, we would have to track the upstream bug, re-open the closed
bug and re-close CURRENTRELEASE. That's a lot of work, and not
worthwhile.

Cheers,
Mark.