Bug#369257: remote bug tracking system doesn't look at versions
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Don Armstrong writes:
> > > On Sun, 28 May 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > this bug is fixed for 4.1; with these changes you invalidate the
> > > > information kept in the Debian BTS. Please fix it, or stop it.
> > >
> > > This has nothing to do with bugs.debian.org or the BTS at all. Talk to
> > > the btslink implementer instead, please. [Reassigning to general
> > > instead of closing outright in case there is a better place; otherwise
> > > it should be closed.]
> > with the very same logic you could close bugs filed against
> > ftp.debian.org about changing overrides or removing packages from
> > the archive.
> If I was an ftpmaster or filed those bugs, yes... but since I'm not, I
> won't be closing them.
> > you can fix it by not processing the mails affecting some packages,
> > so it's appropriate to file against bugs.debian.org.
> 1) There's nothing wrong with the messages that have been sent by
the only thing that is correct. is the syntax. everything else is
wrong. the messages should have been generated for gcc-snapshot (if at
all), but not for 4.1.
> 2) While I can do so, adding administrative prohibitions over
> something which should be worked out between the GCC maintainers and
> the btslink maintainers is not something that I'm going to do as an
> initial step.
that's difficult, emails to to
firstname.lastname@example.org are automatically rejected,
if you're not subscribed. I really do not intend to subscribe to each
system / ML, which sends bogus control messages.
> 3) If the GCC maintainers don't want btslink modifying any non-user
> tags for their packages, I'm fairly sure that the btslink maintainer
> can implement that fairly simply; they should just communicate with
> eachother instead of expecting the bts administrators to mediate for
> them via administrative prohibitions.
> > sorry, no. A bug tracking system doesn't track responsibilities, but
> > problems. That is a problem with the information in the BTS. It
> > doesn't matter if the changes can be done by the BTS admins or
> > others.
> What problems with the information in the BTS are you talking about?
the usertags, which are wrongly set and removed.
please don't get me wrong; generally the btslink information is
useful, but I do see the BTS maintainers in charge as well, if the
system is "misused". we did see this in the past with unreflected
changes of the forwarded information, now with wrong usertags. what