[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#168213: marked as done (bugs.debian.org: merging should be allowed in different "forwarded to" states)

Your message dated Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:36:29 -0700
with message-id <20060418233629.GD14053@volo.donarmstrong.com>
and subject line Blocks/Blocked-by bugs need to be blocked the same way
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: bugs.debian.org
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-11-07
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch


When upstream bugs are getting merged they normally deal with the same
problem and have no information that is intersting enough to justify
sending them all to the upstream author.

Therefore merging should be allowed if the "forwarded to" state differ.

Attached is an untested patch.



--- scripts/service.in.orig     2002-11-07 23:01:32.000000000 +0100
+++ scripts/service.in  2002-11-07 23:01:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -449,7 +449,6 @@
             &transcript("D| adding $ref ($s_mergedwith)\n") if $dl;
            $mismatch= '';
-           &checkmatch('forwarded addr','m_forwarded',$s_forwarded);
            $s_severity = '$gDefaultSeverity' if $s_severity eq '';
            &checkmatch('done mark','m_done',length($s_done) ? 'done' : 'open');

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux app109 2.4.18-app109-4-imq #1 Sam Jul 27 13:14:33 CEST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Blocked bugs (and those blocked-by) need to be blocked in the same
way; otherwise merging them will produce an undefined state. Merging
the set of blocks isn't exactly obvious either.

The implementation of forcemerge will enable the second bug to take on
the exact same state as the first bug listed, but that's not yet fully
tested. As that bug already exists in multiple forms (see #14043 et
al.) I'm closing this bug.

Don Armstrong

The solution to a problem changes the problem.
 -- Peer's Law

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--- End Message ---

Reply to: