Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead

[Ian Jackson]

Bjorn Tillenius writes ("Re: Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead"):
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 04:45:50PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Other times I would prefer not to [report upstream myself]
...
> If it's indeed a bug, I think it's fair to let the bug be open in
> Ubuntu. Even though it's such a bug that it won't be resolved in an
> Ubuntu context, it still exists in Ubuntu. Would maybe the following
> work?

By this reasoning, most upstream bugs should also be bugs open in
Ubuntu.

>     * Tell the reporter that he should report the bug upstream, and
>       then add the link to the Ubuntu bug report
> 
>     * Mark the bug as 'needs info' until the upstream bug link has been
>       added

This is no good; the bug is liable to end up in this state
indefinitely.  If I decide it's not worth doing anything particular
about the bug for Ubuntu, and explain why, then the submitter might
well agree with me and decide to do nothing either - not even hunting
for the bug upstream.

>     * Maybe also setting the priority to low, to indicate that this bug
>       will be fixed in Ubuntu, only if upstream fixes it.
> 
> That way, for a bug reporter, searching for existing bug reports, he
> would see that the bug has already been reported in Ubuntu, and is
> being worked on upstream. For you, who want to resolve Ubuntu bugs, you
> could filter out all the bugs that are linked to an open upstream bug.

That doesn't help because it will filter out upstream bugs that we
_have_ decided to fix locally in Ubuntu.

Ian.