On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:24:19 +0100 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > > On 2016-07-24 16:00, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > > > Should <owner@bugs.d.o> be contacted, perhaps? > > > > Sure, if you'd like to. > > Dear BTS owner, > could you please investigate on what happened to bug #830267 on > 2016-07-19T10:00 ? > > Please take a look at > https://bugs.debian.org/830267#20 > https://bugs.debian.org/830267#25 > for more context.
Hrm; it was shown as affecting testing at T0600 (and all subsequent runs): status-201607190600:number=830267 status-201607190600-testing=1 status-201607190600-unstable=1 but not on the immediately preceding run: status-201607190000:number=830267 status-201607190000-testing=0 status-201607190000-unstable=1 (You can check this out with grep -C 14 number=830267 /srv/bugs.debian.org/bugscan/stati/status-201607{19,20}*; on buxtehude or by getting those status files from the web interface and examining them.) That's really odd; I haven't changed anything on the BTS side during that time period which would explain that happening. Unfortunately, I don't know when the BTS thought that 1.18.9 was actually in testing and not in unstable. I'll try to check out snapshots later this week to see if I can figure out when the transition actually happened, or if there was something else going on in the archive to explain it. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. -- W. Churchill