Adding "upstream issue" to ticket resolutions

[Michael Dickens]

I am in agreement with what Sean wrote below. I like the idea of an
"upstreamissue" option, and I find "wontfix" a little off-putting. I
also agree with Mojca about the "accept" option -- I generally know when
a ticket is mine, and when it's fixed it does not matter (to me) if I
have accepted it or not before closing. I think it's more important to
be able to assign the ticket to the port owner(s), which is pretty easy
to do without the "accept" option. That said, the current system does
work, so no matter how I feel about it it's better this way than many
other ways. - MLD

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014, at 08:05 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> While I really don't like trac nor it's interface, I have to say that,
> being a package manager and all, we really need an 'upstream'
> state. 'wontfix' isn't what we want as that's mostly rude and signifies
> a user error. 'upstream' signifies, I think fairly generally, that we'd
> be willing to accept an upstream patch that's been backported or wait
> until the next release of a package. 'wontfix' just doesn't convey that
> message.