Your message dated Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:29:12 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#433024: bugs.debian.org: RC bugs are archived when unfixed
in stable
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: bugs.debian.org
In various discussions prior to the reintroduction of bug archiving, the
release team expressed the view that bugs of release-critical severity
should not be archived until they have explicitly fixed in stable (according
to version-tracking), or have been explicitly marked as not applying to
stable (with suite tags).
This does not seem to be what has been implemented. E.g., bug #399761 is a
serious bug that was fixed in unstable/testing but not in stable, and the
bug was archived. This has a negative impact on tracking RC bugs as a whole
in stable, because explicit action is required in order to keep these bugs
from being archived.
Please do not archive release critical bugs before they're fixed in stable,
unless explicit suite tags have been used to mark these bugs as only
applying to other suites.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 18:43:04 <dondelelcaro> vorlon: I could change the code to tell
> whether or not any of the distribution specific tags have been set and
> then use them inpreference to the default set for archival, and use a
> different default set for RC bugs, but while the code isn't hard,
> explaining to anyone how it works is a PITA.
I've committed this change now.
Don Armstrong
--
[A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the
class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.
-- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ ยง21
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--- End Message ---
