submitter 512226 ! close 512226 1.7-1 thanks Hi Bastian,
Thanks for your attention. However, I think you have a false positive. :-) On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 04:32:35PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > This bug was closed with a new version but is no new version available > bug. No, that's right. But the fix for the bug is in the upstream release, and so it is documented in the upstream changelog. It made sense to me to not copy that information in debian/changelog, but instead just close the bug as an effect of the new upstream release. Is that an improper thing to do? I had contact with the original submitter (I set it to myself now to prevent spamming him) about it (which is also in the bug log, if other people want to know), so AFAICS there should be no problem at all with this approach. > Please fix that. Is there consensus in the project that this is a bad thing? I don't care much about it, so I wouldn't mind following other people's advice, even if I don't agree it's actually a good thing. But I haven't even heard anyone suggest before that this is not a thing to do. Reopening the bug seems to be a strong action, especially if you would read the bug log (which clearly explains that the new release fixes the bug). But I suppose this is because this is part of a mass-bug-reopening project, or something? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
