Re: should bugs really be closed?
Hi, Adam Heath wrote:
> What if bugs filed against older versions get cloned to the newer package, the
> newer package closes the cloned bugs, and when the old package is removed, the
> bugs get closed?
Whatever for?
Status before this: We have a bunch of open bugs against OLD_VERSION.
Status afterwards: We have a bunch of open bugs against OLD_VERSION.
The bugs against NEW_VERSION will be archived, and thus not visible.
So what would be the point?
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
"Finding that no religion is based on facts and cannot be
true, I began to reflect what must be the condition of
mankind trained from infancy to believe in error."
[Robert Owen, 19th century reformer]
Re: should bugs really be closed?
Adam Heath writes: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > well, you can still get the version, when the bug was closed from the > > changelog. If we do not close the bug, nobody will get a note that the > > bug has been fixed (in the new default version). Bugs reported for 3.2 > > have been closed when 3.3 became the default version, not earlier. > > > > what interest does Debian have in keeping these bugs open? > > What if bugs filed against older versions get cloned to the newer package, the > newer package closes the cloned bugs, and when the old package is removed, the > bugs get closed? suppose I do have a life besides Debian? ;-) If this can be done automatically it might be worth considering. it's a matter of time you want to invest. but again, what interest does Debian have in keeping these bugs open? Matthias
Re: should bugs really be closed?
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:59:33PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > what interest does Debian have in keeping these bugs open? The obvious reason is so that there's a list of known issues with the package. Users might find this a valuable resource. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpuNsyTagGhK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: should bugs really be closed?
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 19:59, Matthias Klose wrote: > Jamin W. Collins writes: > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get > > > removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense. > > > > Could tag them with the release name that affected release name (woody, > > sarge, sid, etc...). It's what I've done with the Jabber bug reports > > that only affect the woody release. > > well, you can still get the version, when the bug was closed from the > changelog. If we do not close the bug, nobody will get a note that the > bug has been fixed (in the new default version). Bugs reported for 3.2 > have been closed when 3.3 became the default version, not earlier. > Surely you'd do something like this: clone -1 reassign -1 gcc-3.2 tags -1 fixed thanks > what interest does Debian have in keeping these bugs open? > Because they are bugs in gcc-3.2, so prevent you getting duplicates all the time as well as let users know that to fix that problem they need to use gcc-3.3 instead. Scott signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: should bugs really be closed?
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Matthias Klose wrote: > well, you can still get the version, when the bug was closed from the > changelog. If we do not close the bug, nobody will get a note that the > bug has been fixed (in the new default version). Bugs reported for 3.2 > have been closed when 3.3 became the default version, not earlier. > > what interest does Debian have in keeping these bugs open? What if bugs filed against older versions get cloned to the newer package, the newer package closes the cloned bugs, and when the old package is removed, the bugs get closed?
Re: should bugs really be closed?
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions > > of gcc (e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in > > later version (e.g. gcc 3.3). > > > > Is that really correct? > > gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still contains those bugs. So > > IMHO bugs should be still opened against it, unless a fix is > > backported. > > These bugs won't be fixed in gcc-3.2. gcc-3.3 is a newer upstream > version. Just because it's made as a separate package doesn't mean a > newer upstream hasn't been uploaded(3.3). > > If we follow your advice, then all packages would need to have separate > per-(major-)version instances, so that bugs on older versions could be > fixed. Why? I don't mean that older versions of any packages should be kept in the archive. I agree that bugs filed e.g. against KDE2 that are fixed in KDE3 should be closed, because KDE3 packages do superseed KDE2 packages (KDE2 packages are no longer in unstable). But in case of gcc, older versions do present in the archive, and possibly will not disappear for quite a while. So why bug filed against gcc-3.2 package should be closed if gcc-3.2 package is in unstable and still contains that bug (and probably will contain it until it's removal)? The same situation is with different versions of tcl, with gtk1/gtk2, and some other packages.
Re: should bugs really be closed?
Jamin W. Collins writes: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get > > removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense. > > Could tag them with the release name that affected release name (woody, > sarge, sid, etc...). It's what I've done with the Jabber bug reports > that only affect the woody release. well, you can still get the version, when the bug was closed from the changelog. If we do not close the bug, nobody will get a note that the bug has been fixed (in the new default version). Bugs reported for 3.2 have been closed when 3.3 became the default version, not earlier. what interest does Debian have in keeping these bugs open? Matthias
Re: should bugs really be closed?
Rene Engelhard writes: > You shouldn't forget that gcc 3.2 is still default on sparc... s/still/again/ now, s/3.2/3.3/ soon.
Re: should bugs really be closed?
Jamin W. Collins wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense. Could tag them with the release name that affected release name (woody, sarge, sid, etc...). It's what I've done with the Jabber bug reports that only affect the woody release. Except gcc-2.96, gcc-3.2 and gcc-3.3 are all available in sarge (for example), last time I checked... -- Keith
Re: should bugs really be closed?
Hi, Adam Heath wrote: > These bugs won't be fixed in gcc-3.2. gcc-3.3 is a newer upstream version. > Just because it's made as a separate package doesn't mean a newer upstream > hasn't been uploaded(3.3). You shouldn't forget that gcc 3.2 is still default on sparc... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgp0uKdkFMqK5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: should bugs really be closed?
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get > removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense. Could tag them with the release name that affected release name (woody, sarge, sid, etc...). It's what I've done with the Jabber bug reports that only affect the woody release. -- Jamin W. Collins To be nobody but yourself when the whole world is trying it's best night and day to make you everybody else is to fight the hardest battle any human being will fight. -- E.E. Cummings
Re: should bugs really be closed?
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:29:59AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions of gcc > > (e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in later version > > (e.g. gcc 3.3). > > > > Is that really correct? > > gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still contains those bugs. So IMHO > > bugs should be still opened against it, unless a fix is backported. > > These bugs won't be fixed in gcc-3.2. gcc-3.3 is a newer upstream version. > Just because it's made as a separate package doesn't mean a newer upstream > hasn't been uploaded(3.3). > > If we follow your advice, then all packages would need to have separate > per-(major-)version instances, so that bugs on older versions could be fixed. I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgp0OrX5tlfE8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: should bugs really be closed?
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions of gcc > (e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in later version > (e.g. gcc 3.3). > > Is that really correct? > gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still contains those bugs. So IMHO > bugs should be still opened against it, unless a fix is backported. These bugs won't be fixed in gcc-3.2. gcc-3.3 is a newer upstream version. Just because it's made as a separate package doesn't mean a newer upstream hasn't been uploaded(3.3). If we follow your advice, then all packages would need to have separate per-(major-)version instances, so that bugs on older versions could be fixed.
