Bug#926215: reassign 928405 to src:glibc, notfixed 926215 in 2.6~20180302-1, tagging 926215
Control: tag -1 sid buster On 2019-05-10 16:41, Santiago Vila wrote: > I don't think "found with version, fixed without version" is a good idea. The other way around means all versions prior the fixed one are buggy. > Anyway, I finally managed to close the bug. If you agree we can keep > it that way and let it to be archived. With appropriate tagging s.t. it does not show up for stretch :-) Andreas
Bug#926215: reassign 928405 to src:glibc, notfixed 926215 in 2.6~20180302-1, tagging 926215
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:37:51PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > The bug is now again in the bts-is-confused state: found+fixed in the > same version (which is treated as not-fixed and wont-be-archived). My > intention was to close it as invalid (found with version, fixed without > version) + unreproducible, since it is unclear which package actually > fixed it (such that a reassign+affects could be used). I don't think "found with version, fixed without version" is a good idea. Anyway, I finally managed to close the bug. If you agree we can keep it that way and let it to be archived. Thanks.
Bug#926215: reassign 928405 to src:glibc, notfixed 926215 in 2.6~20180302-1, tagging 926215
On 2019-05-10 15:07, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Tue, 7 May 2019, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > >> reassign 928405 src:glibc 2.28-10 >> notfixed 926215 2.6~20180302-1 >> tags 926215 + unreproducible >> thanks > > Hello Andreas. Sorry, I have just marked this bug as fixed, because I > didn't realize that you had the intention to reassign it. > > The bug I submitted originally was definitely reproducible, and that's > why I wanted to close it. > > If you still want to reassign the bug, please do so (apparently The reassign was for a completely different bug. > the reassign above didn't work), but I'd like to know the rationale > for doing so. The bug is now again in the bts-is-confused state: found+fixed in the same version (which is treated as not-fixed and wont-be-archived). My intention was to close it as invalid (found with version, fixed without version) + unreproducible, since it is unclear which package actually fixed it (such that a reassign+affects could be used). Andreas
