-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way to > leave the bug open and state that it will be stabled later. Would > a comment trigger this in the script? That seems semi-sane. If > the maintainer wanted to stabilize things they would cc arches, any > other comment could likely be understood to mean "don't auto-stable > this". >
It does make a lot of sense that there be a way to flag whether the bug has been touched or not, and *only* auto-process it if it hasn't been touched. Of course there are some cases where changes would be OK (CC's added, for instance; also end-user comments but possibly dev comments)... Maybe we can do something with bug status? Something along the lines maybe of filing as 'unconfirmed' and a dev setting it to 'confirmed' (or anything else) would make it be ignored by the auto-stabilizer ? Or maybe 'confirmed' is the initial status and a dev can set it to 'unconfirmed' or w/e... ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlGcxAoACgkQ2ugaI38ACPA4/AEAp7ezuWH8GjdkrM/1wsidA5Gw iK0+RvCt3xXQBWK+9yYBAI7R/77W154YZ40W28dRDvMHavR1RazzmSffE9FRiTCT =Bclk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
