Bogdan, Yes I think tracking the bugs like this would be beneficial. We should also link them from the BP so that the imperilmenter can track them. It adds "related blueprints" in the bottom of the right column under the subscribers so we probably should also edit the description so that the data is easy to see On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobrelia at mirantis.com> wrote: > Hello. > There is inconsistency in the triage process for Fuel bugs superseded by > blueprints. > The current approach is to set "won't fix" status for such bugs. > But there are some cases we should clarify [0], [1]. > > I vote to not track superseded bugs separately and keep them as "won't > fix" but update the status back to "confirmed" in case of regression > discovered. And if we want to backport an improvement tracked by a > blueprint (just for an exceptional case) let's assign milestones for > related bugs. > > If we want to change the triage rules, let's announce that so the people > won't get confused. > > [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1383741 > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1422856 > > -- > Best regards, > Bogdan Dobrelya, > Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com <http://bogdando_at_yahoo.com> > Irc #bogdando > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Andrew Mirantis Fuel community ambassador Ceph community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150218/b39d6c37/attachment.html>