Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Hi. > > Armin Berres wrote: > >>Maybe I don't understand you or you don't understand me. > > Yes, but please be assured that I'm genuinely trying to understand.
I will try ;) >>There is no Initng version in unstable! The benefit I see from closing >>the bug completely is that it will vanish from the statistic. In the >>whole Debian project exist no package with this bug so why should it >>stay opened? Or lets say why should it appear only closed in >>experimental? No Initng version is in unstable so it is also closed in >>unstable this way ;) > > I appreciate your effort to explain, but I must strain your patience a > bit further if I want to understand: > - Will there be a version of initng in unstable? I hope so. But I think this will still need some time (it is quite stable already so I don't know if it should go there or not.) > - Was there ever a version of initng in unstable or experimental which > doesn't contain the bug anymore? There was _never_ any version of Initng in unstable. The current version (uploaded today) doesn't contain the bugs anymore. > - Can you point me to a bug which is counted as "open" for unstable when > it's clearly clearly tagged fixed for some version? > - Which statistics do you mean? I'm talking about this statistics: http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/initng.html http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Have a look at the pending bugs. If I shouldn't close them I shouldn't have them marked pending too (cause pending means pending to unstable as I see now). The bugs are still as pending in the satistic, but they are now fixed in every Debian package (after tey've been built). If I wouldn't have marked them pending they would now still appear as opened... > My apologies for being slow to get this. No problem. Maybe you understand now what I mean. Regards, Armin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]