Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > I would guess (and in my case, I know) that the people who do this are > using it for some standard indication of the “resolution” of the bug > report. That is, answering the question “What was the state of the bug > when this report was closed?”
> The usual case would be “fixed”, so that can be assumed in the absence > of such information. But for reports closed *without* a “fix”, it would > be good to indicate that, probably with standard tags. Do they exist? There are tags, and there is the closed status. They are entirely independent in the Debian BTS, except that you can't set tags on archived bugs. So if a maintainer wishes to use tags for that purpose, there's certainly nothing stopping them. The Debian BTS already distinguishes effectively (IMO) between bug reports that were closed because they were fixed and bug reports that were closed for other reasons, usually because they were invalid. Bug reports that are closed because they were fixed are closed indicating a version of the package in which they were fixed, and the BTS knows that the bug is still present in older versions. I personally therefore don't feel a need to use additional tags to distinguish between various closed states for my packages. My personal experience is that doing more than distinguishing between closing a bug because it was fixed in a particular version or versions and closing a bug for some other reason for all versions is busy-work that I'd rather not bother with. The distinction between WONTFIX, INVALID, and WORKSFORME in Bugzilla, for instance, is a distinction I've never seen much utility in drawing. This is just my personal opinion for my own packages. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org