Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead

[Ian Jackson]

James Henstridge writes ("Re: Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead"):
> On 28/02/06, Ian Jackson <ian at davenant.greenend.org.uk> 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.
> 
> If a bug is not appropriate or applicable to Ubuntu, then the Ubuntu
> bug task would be rejected.  The other bug tasks would remain linked
> to the remote bugs.
> 
> Does that help clear up the multiple bug tasks model for you?

Thanks, that's a nice clarification of the confusion about the model.
I'm glad that you agree with me that this bug task should not remain
open, and that you therefore (apparently) disagree with what Christian
and Bjorn said earlier.

However, that leaves unanswered my main point, which is that using
`status rejected' for this meaning is unfortunate.  As I wrote
in my initial message:

 IMO `rejected' is wrong because it implies that the original report is
 somehow defective.  It is a (relatively mild) implied criticism of the
 submitter's decision to file the bug in the first place.  Sometimes
 this is appropriate, and that's when `rejected' is right.  `Rejected'
 to me means `this should not have been filed in the first place and
 the submitter should have known that', and rejecting a bug in this way
 (with a polite explanation) is part of the process of educating the
 community.

 However in this case the situation is quite different.  The bug report
 is quite true and appropriate, and no criticism of the submitter is
 implied by my decision to spend our limited effort elsewhere.  It
 would be nice to be able to close a report (strictly, in LP-speak, a
 task) with something along the lines of `we agree that this would be
 nice but we are not going to spend any effort on it in the context of
 Ubuntu'.

So it would seem to me that what I'm asking for is a new status other
than `rejected' and `fixreleased'; say `status notforus'.

Ian.