Hi there! On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:15:16 +0200, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:05:14 +0200 > Luca Capello <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > #447523: splashy: timeout error due to fsck on big partitions >> [...] >> > From: Neil Williams <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Closing >> [...] >> > notfound 447523 0.3.5 >> >> I disagree on this, read below. >> >> > splashy is no longer in Debian as oldstable has been cleared in >> > preparation for the Wheezy freeze. >> >> The fact that splashy is no longer in Debian (because of #648063) is one >> thing, which does not mean that the bug I reported had not been found in >> that specific version. >> >> 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.
According to the BTS documentation, -done does not absolutely need a Version: line: <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing> Where applicable, please supply a Version line in the pseudo-header of your message when closing a bug, so that the bug tracking system knows which releases of the package contain the fix. > The found version is still listed in the bug report itself, removing > the found status simply allows the bug to be archived. If this is true (thus a bug to be archived needs no open found status), then I would say that the BTS archive option is not completely working: the bug should be available for archive, no matter its found status, at least in these special situations. Moreover, if I want to reintroduce splashy I would need a *quick* way to know which bugs were present in the last version in Debian, which is now impossible without looking at *each* bug. > 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. The package *existed* in Debian, at the time the bug was reported, so the information for that time are still true. We are re-writing the history here, which is IMHO plainly wrong. Just to be clear: I am perfectly fine with closing this kind of bugs, but I do not agree on the method. Anyway, I expressed my opinion without doing any work, so this will be my last email on this subject. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
pgps7PY0by7ee.pgp
Description: PGP signature
