Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1440 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 04:15:12PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> 
> 
> [Sent from my iPad, as it is not a secured device there are no cryptographic keys on this device, meaning this message is sent without an OpenPGP signature. In general you should *not* rely on any information sent over such an unsecure channel, if you find any information controversial or un-expected send a response and request a signed confirmation]
> 
> > On 29 Mar 2017, at 09:56, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,
> > and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular resolution?
> > Any other ideas?
> 
> Upstream keyword doesn't seem relevant as it implies having submitted patch or at least filed bug upstream, so the real question is whether we need a separation of something that is out of scope for Gentoo and can be referred upstream or not. The way I see it, directly using RESOLVED INVALID is likely as good an explaination as RESOLVED UPSTREAM unless we want to monitor stats for rejection reasons.

I disagree with resolved/invalid being appropriate. That means it isn't
a bug at all. Resolved/upstream should be used when we direct a user to
file an issue upstream or file the issue ourselves.

Resolved/upstream acknowledges that this is an issue but directs it
upstream. Resolved/invalid says this isn't an issue.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]