Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead

[Ian Jackson]

I've been deferring replying to these messages in the hope that the
situation would make some kind of sense when I read them again, but I
fear this hasn't happened.

The clearest statement of the confusion is this:

> [Ian Jackson:]
> > By this reasoning, most upstream bugs should also be bugs open in
> > Ubuntu.

Both Christian Robottom Reis and Bjorn Tillenius say `yes' - but then
go on to say that we shouldn't go and open all of those bugs.

There is obviously something fundamentally wrong with my understanding
of the Launchpad team's model, or with the model itself.  How can we
say that these bugs should be open in Ubuntu but that we shouldn't
open them ?  That seems to me to be a straightforward contradiction.

If all upstream bugs should be open in Ubuntu then something should
open them (probably, Launchpad automatically).  If, on the other hand,
most bugs shouldn't be open - in particular, if only a small subset of
upstream bugs should be recorded against Ubuntu - then there should be
a way to close a bug that was opened in Ubuntu's bugtracker but which
it has now been decided should not have been reported there.

Indeed, Christian's qualification seems to put my own view clearly:
> ...  -- but you should probably only track bugs in Ubuntu
> that are relevant to your end-users or developer team.

Bugs should only be tracked in Ubuntu's bugtracker (that is, be
reported against Ubuntu in Launchpad) if they are relevant to Ubuntu.

What I wanted was to say `this bug is not relevant to Ubuntu' but the
system doesn't let me do that.

Ian.