Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Out of curiousity, what _did_ you expect the blocking tag to
do?
[...]
The one thing that I really wanted to have happen and was surprised didn't
happen was that I wanted a blocking annotation be
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:07:28 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiousity, what _did_ you expect the blocking tag to
do?
I would for example, expect the blocked bug to be notified when
something relevant happens to the blocking bug. And, I would expect it
to be
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:41:40 +0100, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:07:28 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiousity, what _did_ you expect the blocking tag to do?
I would for example, expect the blocked bug to be notified when
something
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:08:56 +0100, Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Afaik there are no changes in behavior. blocks are only
informational.
If this is true, it is a _TOTAL_ surprise for me. We need better
documentation.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 13:45:13 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This all may change at some point in the future, but since that's the
way it works now, the documentation is pretty complete.
I disagree. As blocking bugs are usually implemented differently, at
least a sentence as all
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
Bug blocking only being a specialized kind of tagging is a total
surprise for me. And I suspect that I am not the only one.
Since it's confusing to you, you're the best person to submit patches.
Don Armstrong
--
Taxes are not levied for the benefit of
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:01:58AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:08:56 +0100, Andreas Metzler
Afaik there are no changes in behavior. blocks are only
informational.
If this is true, it is a _TOTAL_ surprise for me. We need better
documentation.
IIRC it also generates mail
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:01:58 +0100, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:08:56 +0100, Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Afaik there are no changes in behavior. blocks are only
informational.
If this is true, it is a _TOTAL_ surprise for me. We need better
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Out of curiousity, what _did_ you expect the blocking tag to
do? If there is an obvious answer to that, I can see why not having
that behaviour would be a surprise. Since I can't come up with a
reasonable response to what additional
Russ Allbery wrote:
The one thing that I really wanted to have happen and was surprised didn't
happen was that I wanted a blocking annotation be automatically removed
when the blocking bug was closed. (Or even better, made dormant so that
if the other bug would reopen, the annotation would
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey I agree, if I had some ability to work on blocking bugs
Joey again, removing them on close is probably the next thing I'd
Joey try to do.
... and if the blocking bug is reopened?
Or what if the blocking bug is fixed in, say the
[MFT set to debian-debbugs, which is the right list to discuss this
sort of thing.]
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
I agree, if I had some ability to work on blocking bugs again,
removing them on close is probably the next thing I'd try to do.
I personally haven't really had time to
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:19:59 -0500, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Russ Allbery wrote:
The one thing that I really wanted to have happen and was surprised
didn't happen was that I wanted a blocking annotation be
automatically removed when the blocking bug was closed. (Or even
better,
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Out of curiousity, what _did_ you expect the blocking tag to do?
If there is an obvious answer to that, I can see why not having
that behaviour would be a surprise.
The one thing that I really wanted to
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:56:27 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:51:26 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
$ GET http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control|grep block
dtcodeblock/code varbugnumber/var codeby/code
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:56:27 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:51:26 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ GET http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control|grep block
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
What happens to a bug when it's blocked?
Nothing, besides a little link in to the blockee's information to the
blocker's page.
Which operations do behave as if the bug were not blocked,
All.
which operations behave differently,
None.
and what's the
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:51:26 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
$ GET http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control|grep block
dtcodeblock/code varbugnumber/var codeby/code varbug/var ...
ddNote that the fix for the first bug is blocked by the other listed bugs.
dtcodeunblock/code
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:51:26 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
$ GET http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control|grep block
dtcodeblock/code varbugnumber/var codeby/code varbug/var
...
ddNote that the fix for the first bug is blocked by the
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 12:43:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Roberto C Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You mean so that different people can file the same bug over and over
again? Personally, I'd like to see a notabug tag so that you can have a
bug still appear on the BTS page but not
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
Has blocking been documented since I looked for the last time?
Blocking has been documented for quite some time:
revision 1.54
date: 2006-07-13 15:14:12 -0700; author: joeyh; state: Exp; lines: +7 -0
document block/unblock
Don Armstrong
--
I'd
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 00:30:40 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
Has blocking been documented since I looked for the last time?
Blocking has been documented for quite some time:
revision 1.54
date: 2006-07-13 15:14:12 -0700; author: joeyh;
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 08:51:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:05:21 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Nov 30, Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what about the middle case, i.e. the behaviour described could be
reproduced, but it's not a bug,
Roberto C Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You mean so that different people can file the same bug over and over
again? Personally, I'd like to see a notabug tag so that you can have a
bug still appear on the BTS page but not count (maybe even put the
notabug bugs at the top or after the RC
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 00:30:40 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
Blocking has been documented for quite some time:
revision 1.54
date: 2006-07-13 15:14:12 -0700; author: joeyh; state: Exp; lines: +7 -0
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:05:21 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Nov 30, Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what about the middle case, i.e. the behaviour described could be
reproduced, but it's not a bug, or at least not our fault? (Bugzilla calls
this INVALID).
I
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:51:07 -0800, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At least one of the bugs should be reassigned; you can of course clone
a bug, reassign it, make the original blocking on the reassigned bug,
and retitle the original to indicate what is the problem. [There is a
wishlist bug
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer defines the following tags as reasons to
dismiss a bug report:
* wontfix: the behaviour described can be reproduced or the feature request is
understood; it is indeed an issue with our package but we can't or won't do
anything about it because there are
On Nov 30, Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what about the middle case, i.e. the behaviour described could be
reproduced, but it's not a bug, or at least not our fault? (Bugzilla calls
this INVALID).
I agree that it could be useful, since I get a lot of these cases...
--
ciao,
I demand that Magnus Holmgren may or may not have written...
[snip]
Often, but not always, the bug can or should be reassigned to another
package, but then a second user might come around and submit the same bug
report.
Then, when showing bugs for that package, shouldn't those reassigned bugs
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
what about the middle case, i.e. the behaviour described could be
reproduced, but it's not a bug, or at least not our fault?
(Bugzilla calls this INVALID).
Often, but not always, the bug can or should be reassigned to another
package,
but then a
31 matches
Mail list logo
