Re: Processed: block 680670 with 688793, tagging 680670
On Sun, 2012-09-30 at 03:30 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 680670 with 688793
Bug #680670 {Done: Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org} [obnam] obnam:
add_key doesn't encrypt symmetric key with new key
680670 was not blocked by any bugs.
680670 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 680670: 688793
How is the unblock request blocking the fixing of the bug? The bug is
already fixed and it's not even blocking the transition of the fix,
given that the unblock was added.
tags 680670 + pending
Bug #680670 {Done: Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org} [obnam] obnam:
add_key doesn't encrypt symmetric key with new key
Added tag(s) pending.
Marking an already closed bug as pending is slightly unusual too, given
the standard meaning of an upload will be made soon.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1348996827.15180.29.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Processed: block 680670 with 688793, tagging 680670
On 2012-09-30, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
How is the unblock request blocking the fixing of the bug? The bug is
already fixed and it's not even blocking the transition of the fix,
given that the unblock was added.
True, it doesn't. However, there was nothing in the bug report here
refering to the unblock request, so I think it is good practice to refer
to that bug.
tags 680670 + pending
Bug #680670 {Done: Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org} [obnam] obnam:
add_key doesn't encrypt symmetric key with new key
Added tag(s) pending.
Marking an already closed bug as pending is slightly unusual too, given
the standard meaning of an upload will be made soon.
How else should we show bug squashers to not worry about this bug
through metadata (as opposed to spending the 5-10 minutes to look into
it? :)
A.
--
Antoine Beaupré +++ Réseau Koumbit Networks +++ +1.514.387.6262 #208
pgpHrwhdLqVwI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Processed: block 680670 with 688793, tagging 680670
On Sun, 2012-09-30 at 09:56 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
On 2012-09-30, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
How is the unblock request blocking the fixing of the bug? The bug is
already fixed and it's not even blocking the transition of the fix,
given that the unblock was added.
True, it doesn't. However, there was nothing in the bug report here
refering to the unblock request, so I think it is good practice to refer
to that bug.
It seems an odd (mis)use of the tag, imo. It /might/ make more sense if
there was some contention or delay surrounding the unblock request but
adding it after the package has already been unblocked seems at best
redundant.
Marking the release.d.o bug as affecting the other package would seem a
more reasonable approach if you really need some indication on the
package's BTS pages.
tags 680670 + pending
Bug #680670 {Done: Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org} [obnam] obnam:
add_key doesn't encrypt symmetric key with new key
Added tag(s) pending.
Marking an already closed bug as pending is slightly unusual too, given
the standard meaning of an upload will be made soon.
How else should we show bug squashers to not worry about this bug
through metadata (as opposed to spending the 5-10 minutes to look into
it? :)
How about using the correct piece of metadata, which was already set -
i.e. the fact that the bug is closed and marked as fixed in a version of
the package which is in unstable? :-)
Bugs which are marked as fixed in unstable but still affecting testing
might need someone to look in to why they're not migrating, but that
requires looking at the excuses and/or checking release.d.o bugs; I
wouldn't necessarily expect them to be on the radar of people looking
through the BTS for random bugs to squash in unstable. I could be wrong
of course...
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1349015477.15180.53.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: block 680670 with 688793, tagging 680670
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 680670 with 688793
Bug #680670 {Done: Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org} [obnam] obnam:
add_key doesn't encrypt symmetric key with new key
680670 was not blocked by any bugs.
680670 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 680670: 688793
tags 680670 + pending
Bug #680670 {Done: Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org} [obnam] obnam:
add_key doesn't encrypt symmetric key with new key
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
680670: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680670
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.134897573332612.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
