On 03.06.2010 18:34, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:37:39AM -0000, Abel Deuring wrote:
>> I think the term "upstream" does not cover all situations where more
>> than one bugtask makes sense. Other scenarios are a bug that affects a
>> client and a server, or one that affects a library (maintained as a
>> separate project) and an application that uses the library.
>
> Ah, that's a good point. What would you suggest as a more complete
> wording?
>
What about "A bug may need fixing in more than one project. You can add
here such a project. See also some-link-to-help.lp.net."
"Needs fixing in (distribution|project)" might also be an alternative
for the link texts that lead to the forms to avoid the confusion
mentioned by Martin.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03.06.2010 18:34, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:37:39AM -0000, Abel Deuring wrote:
>> I think the term "upstream" does not cover all situations where more
>> than one bugtask makes sense. Other scenarios are a bug that affects a
>> client and a server, or one that affects a library (maintained as a
>> separate project) and an application that uses the library.
>
> Ah, that's a good point. What would you suggest as a more complete
> wording?
>
What about "A bug may need fixing in more than one project. You can add to-help. lp.net. "
here such a project. See also some-link-
"Needs fixing in (distribution| project) " might also be an alternative enigmail. mozdev. org/
for the link texts that lead to the forms to avoid the confusion
mentioned by Martin.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iD8DBQFMCKzmekB Phm8NrtARAkSKAK CKbzxg8fLnEBlaT 9Zt3fL97JresgCd EiL7 KnGEpve8=
T0SUyQwdNTgTj51
=DOOe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----