On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 01:55:29PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > We need a command that does what notfixed does. > > > > I'm not arguing that notfixed shouldn't do what it does now. I'm > > arguing that it should *also* mark the bug as open if it's currently > > marked as done and there are no fixed versions remaining - > > straightforward bookkeeping, IMO. > > That's exactly the side effect that I don't want it to have. If I > wanted it to have that side effect, I wouldn't have implemented it at > all and instead pointed people at found.
Just so it's clear, the reason why it's important that it not reopen the bug is because it enables me to fix entries in the fixed version list without having to worry about whether or not my changes have caused the bug to be open.[1] At the end of the set of control commands, the bug is almost invariably going to have fixed entries, so should be considered done, but if notfixed reopens it when the fixed set is zero (or to be consistent with found, when the largest found version exceeds the fixed version) I've got to issue two extra nonsensical versioning commands to keep everything sane. Thinking more about it, it may be better if we change the notfound/notfixed to be removefound/removefixed which is literally what they do. [As notfound removing all versions likewise doesn't cause the bug to be marked done.] Don Armstrong 1: Usually I'm fixing bugs which have been resolved to the wrong source/version pair. -- Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien a ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher. (Perfection is apparently not achieved when nothing more can be added, but when nothing else can be removed.) -- Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, Terres des Hommes http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
