On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Guus Sliepen wrote: > I think that if people are actively opening and closing bugs (in > that order) with the same Version tag, they expect the bug to be > closed. I also do not think that there is any danger in having it > marked as closed, it can always be reopened later.
The danger is that packages can transition without a bug having actually been fixed. It's always conservative to have open have precedence over closed. [When was the last time that you looked specifically for bugs which were erroneously closed without also seeing the behavoir that the bug caused?] > How often, when a bug is opened and closed with the same Version > tag, was one of the two Version tags really wrong? First off, these are found and fixed versions that we're talking about; "tags" are something else entirely. Secondly, any time that a bug is found and fixed in the same version, one (or both?) of them is wrong. There's no way for the BTS to know which it is, so it assumes that the found version is correct, and the fixed version is wrong. In the case of bugs which can be fixed by any upload without changes to the source package, the change that needs to be made is to allow bugs to be found in a particular binary version which does not also affect the decendents of that version. I know how to implement this, and have thought about it for a while. I haven't implemented it yet because there aren't too many of these bugs, and the UI and far-reaching effects of it is going to be annoying. Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000309.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100815190650.gr17...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
