[arch-general] Bugs again

[Thomas Bächler]

Jan de Groot schrieb:

> 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 am always tempted to close nvidia bugs as "upstream", as we can do 
nothing about them and there is no public bugtracker I know of. But you 
are right, most of the time we should at least track the bugs even if 
the are upstream.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20090514/e12eab6a/attachment.pgp>