On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 04:15:16PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:05:14 +0200 > Luca Capello <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is the rationale against simply closing the bug without touching > > the reported version? > > For the benefit of the bug report, this was done so that the bug can > be closed with -done instead of the deprecated / special purpose > -close.
Last I checked - and admittedly it's a little while since I was really an active BTS administrator, but the current documentation seems to agree with me - the -done and -close addresses were synonymous, and neither was deprecated. Perhaps you're thinking of the 'close' command to control@bugs and the prefixed '-' was a typo. Rather than removing the found data, it's more usual to mark the bug as (pseudo-)fixed in a version that's slightly greater than the last one in the archive. The current convention is to mail -done/-close with the following pseudo-header at the start of your e-mail body: Version: 0.3.13-5.1+rm This would actually have been less effort as you wouldn't have had to duplicate all the bug numbers between the To: line and all those 'notfound' commands. Nowadays, dak can be told to do this when removing packages, and you can see the code and e-mail template it uses here: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=mirror/dak.git;a=blob;f=dak/rm.py http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=mirror/dak.git;a=blob;f=templates/rm.bug-close-related > I don't see what purpose the found status field will achieve once the > bug is archived as the package does not exist in Debian. I agree that it's a bit academic, but perhaps the argument that the usual convention is actually less effort will be persuasive :-), along with matching what dak does. In general (although perhaps not in this specific case) we like to keep the found versions around in case the package is ever reintroduced. -- Colin Watson [[email protected]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
