Andre, I don't think we need a new resolution WAITING_FOR_UPSTREAM. The main point is: the moment they are RESOLVED they don't appear in most searches. Using the "upstream" keyword is more than enough.
On 11/05/2012 10:56 PM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
Things with the lowest priority should be things that "could" be fixed. But we've got no reason to implement ourselves. LATER should be things that for some technical reason outside our control, right-now we cannot fix. They shouldn't be blended into "Lowest" list of bugs that are possible but waiting for some enterprising 3rd party to take on.
The priority is a minor detail. If "lowest" is so bad we could have "Waiting" or "unprioritized" or whatever else.
eg: Add HTML 5 semantic elements 'details' and 'summary' to Sanitizer whitelist [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29118] RESOLVED LATER due to lack of browser support, waiting the months/years till it is better adopted by browsers and we can defrost the bug.
That one could perfectly sit as NEW with an "upstream" keyword and the priority you desire.
When doing a simple search on the keyboard "upstream" Bugzilla shows the ones that are open (95):
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=upstream
There are 20 more reports RESOLVED LATER waiting for upstream, but these only appear when doing a specific advanced search:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=upstream%2C%20&query...
-- Quim