Add a "Not For Us" status

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

As recently discussed on launchpad-users@, people (especially packagers) need a "Not For Us" resolution for bugs. This resolution means "We're not interested in fixing this bug here specifically, but we'll happily pick up a fix if/when it appears in an upstream release" (or, for upstreams, "we'll happily pick up a fix if a packager fixes it"), without having the harsh connotation of "Rejected".

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

Wouldn't that be a bit like setting the severity very low for that task?

[Brad Bollenbach (bradb)]

On 3/15/06, Matthew Paul Thomas <email address hidden> wrote:
> Public bug reported:
> https://launchpad.net/malone/bugs/35021
>
> Affects: malone (upstream)
> Severity: Normal
> Priority: (none set)
> Status: Unconfirmed
>
> Description:
> As recently discussed on launchpad-users@, people (especially packagers)
> need a "Not For Us" resolution for bugs. This resolution means "We're
> not interested in fixing this bug here specifically, but we'll happily
> pick up a fix if/when it appears in an upstream release" (or, for
> upstreams, "we'll happily pick up a fix if a packager fixes it"),
> without having the harsh connotation of "Rejected".

Another, potentially clearer, name for this status could be "Patches Welcome".

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

On 23 Mar 2006, Brad Bollenbach <email address hidden> wrote:

> Another, potentially clearer, name for this status could be "Patches
> Welcome".

I would find that much clearer. I would read "Not for us" as meaning
"doesn't apply to us", perhaps because it's a platform-specific bug or
doesn't meet stability goals. (That might be an interesting resolution,
also less harsh than "rejected", but less important than this.)

--
Martin

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

Both severity=low and "Patches Welcome" imply that you'd *ever* accept a patch. What I'm looking for is a way of saying "this isn't going to be fixed specially here *at all*". For a distribution, it means that we don't have the resources to diverge from upstream for this package, so please take your fix upstream. For a distribution release, it means time's up for this release, so it's deferred to the next one. For an upstream product, it means this is a distribution-specific bug that we're not going to add an #ifdef for.

I think bug 36059 is a duplicate of this bug.

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

On 30 Mar 2006, Matthew Paul Thomas <email address hidden> wrote:
> Comment:
> Both severity=low and "Patches Welcome" imply that you'd *ever* accept a patch. What I'm looking for is a way of saying "this isn't going to be fixed specially here *at all*".

OK I can see a place for that, if you mean "a specific fix for this
place isn't appropriate, but a general fix might be." Practically that
will mean the task is waiting for the bug to be fixed upstream, and then
they'll see if they can bring it in.

> For a distribution, it means that we don't have the resources to diverge from upstream for this package, so please take your fix upstream.

> For a distribution release, it means time's up for this release, so it's deferred to the next one.

Isn't this just "won't fix", if you intend to not fix it even if there's
an upstream fix?

> For an upstream product, it means this is a distribution-specific bug that we're not going to add an #ifdef for.

And that seems like "invalid" from the point of view of the upstream.

So what about something like "needs upstream fix"?

--
Martin

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

"Isn't this just 'won't fix', if you intend to not fix it even if there's
an upstream fix?"

Right, my current plan is to call this status "Won't Fix Here".