Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead

[Stuart Bishop]

Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
>>> ...
>>> 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.
>>> ...

This sounds like Bug Infestations again. If a bug is reported in an upstream
product, then every package using it would be flagged as being 'possibly
infested', including packages that depend on the infested package. People
could then confirm the infestation (yes, this affects us), or deny it. The
infestation is a way of saying 'this package is being vicimized by this bug
and it needs to be fixed over there'. The infestation would never be closed
or removed. When the bug is fixed upstream, ideally a new product release is
produced and packages build from the new product release will no longer be
infested by the bug.

Although this concept has been around since the earliest days of Malone
development, this has never been implemented, or even specced out fully.
Issues include not being able to flag a bug as being fixed in a particular
product release, and what happens if a bug is opened against a product that
infests nearly everything like a glibc bug. So far, instead of working on
the infestation concept we have instead extended the bugs and the bugtasks
to emulate some of this behavior. I'm not sure if the idea has been
officially dropped or if we just havn't worked out how to make the concept
actually work.

> Would it work to add a status meaning "We're not interested in fixing
> the bug here specifically, but we'll happily pick up a fix if/when it
> appears in an upstream release"?
> 
> If so, what should the status be called? "Not For Us"? "Won't Fix"?
> "Won't Fix Here"? Bugs with such a status probably should appear by
> default in search results, so that (for example) if I encounter the bug
> in Ubuntu Firefox I can find the bug report even if you've already
> decided that Ubuntu won't be making a special effort to fix it.

-- 
Stuart Bishop <stuart.bishop at canonical.com>   http://www.canonical.com/
Canonical Ltd.                                http://www.ubuntu.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/launchpad-users/attachments/20060301/8fab8bde/signature.pgp