On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 13:52 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:14 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > >>> The other XSF folks may not agree on this, but at any rate I think at > >>> least a set of clear rules on how to handle this would be good. > >> I kind of realized this after I'd started, hence stopping partway > >> through. Sorry I didn't realize it earlier.... there's a very large > >> volume of bugs here, and we do indeed have to come up with some sensible > >> way to deal with them. I managed to spot some which were definitely > >> fixed upstream and close them while I was at it. > >> > >> I'd rather not just close them all.... perhaps we should go on a more > >> systematic effort to contact the submitters and close the ones where we > >> don't get replies? > > > > Yeah, basically, I think we should only reassign bugs to the current > > packages that have been confirmed to still be there. Then, once a > > package goes away completely, close all its bugs that were attempted to > > be confirmed without success. > OK. It's significantly easier to close the bugs one at a time as they > are "unconfirmed" because it allows me to keep track of which ones I've > checked and which ones I haven't. That OK?
Fine with me, the above would just be the 'end game' once a package vanishes completely. :) -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
