On 2013-07-03 10:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:38:00 +0200
Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 03.07.2013 18:21, schrieb Matthew Miller:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:25:12AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Could be, but if the still broken bugs are going to be closed,
>>> when the update becomes stable
>> since when do bugs get magically closed?
>
> Since 2007 or so?
what sense makes this?
a new upstream-release does not implicitly close any bug
on the other hand it makes hardly sense to hold back a update
not fixing all bugreports - this all makes no sense for me
I think there's a misunderstanding here.
Bodhi doesn't do anything at all with bugs that are not attached to an
update. How could it?
The bugs that are attached to an update are supposed to be fixed by
that update. If they are not, you should -1 karma the update and if
possible note in the bug that it's not fixed and help provide any info
to the maintainer in bug.
As discussed up thread, this is not the current policy and I'd really
prefer people don't do this. -1 is a Serious Thing, not to be used
lightly.
If an update claims to fix multiple bugs and *does* fix some of them and
doesn't make anything worse, it should be +1ed, not -1ed. If that leads
to some bugs that weren't actually fixed being closed, we can re-open
them. We should not delay useful fixes going out due to bureaucratic
details.
(The update submitter can edit the not-fixed bugs out of the update
before it goes stable to avoid them being closed, if s/he is paying
sufficient attention.)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
