Re: Potato bugs
Chris Tillman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Lately you've decided potato boot-floppies are not to be updated
> anymore. There are lots of old bugs that are not already tagged as
> potato or wontfix, but are in fact potato bugs which don't show up
> AFAICT in woody. Should these be marked 'wontfix' or 'potato'?
They should be closed, actually, if the problem no longer exists in woody.
> 103823 falls in this category.
> I started to check individual bugs, but I reckon all bugs prior to
> 95000 would fall in this category, since you didnt' start building
> woody boot-floppies until last April.
Well, that's not true, since many bugs filed back then are still valid
I'm using WONTFIX for bugs which are wishlists that are valid but
we'll never get to them.
> Also, what are your guidelines for closing bugs where the submitter
> quits responding? If they haven't responded to a query after 3 months
> (e.g.), should it be closed or tagged some special way?
> What I'm really after, is there something helpful I can do just by
> reading through the bugs?
Closing and tagging like you've been doing is fine. I think a bit
more aggressive on closing them is fine and will help us be able to
focus on actually extant issues.
FYI, if a bug is fixed in CVS but that version has not yet been
released, the bug should not be closed but instead marked "pending"
and a changelog entry added so the bug is fixed when the new version
hits the archive.
...Adam Di Carlo..<email@example.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>