[arch-general] Bugs again

Jan de Groot jan at jgc.homeip.net
Thu May 14 10:48:02 EDT 2009

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 16:42 +0200, ludovic coues wrote:
> for me, a bug tracker is for tracking bug. For an upstream issue, the
> bug is spotted, reported to the bug tracker, and flagged upstream.
> Why it'll be closed at this point ?
> While there no patch to correct the bug, the bug is still here, and
> need to be tracked. So closing a bug report before resolving the bug
> is Bad, even if it's an upstream issue.
> That's how I see bug tracker and I wonder why it's not like this.
> Am I wrong ?

The only valid reason I see for closing a bug as upstream, is when
upstream made a decision in the software which is reported as bug by the
user. An example of this is excluding evince from the menus by using
NoDisplay=True in the .desktop file. This bug is opened now and then,
and it's either closed as duplicate of the previous one, or it's closed
as upstream. Upstream decided to remove it from the menus because it's a
viewer application that can't do anything else than file->open, so let
them handle the bugreports for that.

I share your thoughts about this invalid "upstream" closing thing. I
don't think this option should ever be abused to simply get rid of bugs.

More information about the arch-general mailing list