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

Bug#14043: marked as done ([service.in] Allow for forcibly merging bugs)

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: N/A
Priority: wishlist

On Mon, Oct 20, 1997 at 10:03:00PM -0500, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:
> 
> > merge 10266 14023
> Bug#10266: libpwdb0.postinst syntax error
> Bug#14023: libpwdb0: Problem in postinst
> Mismatch - only bugs in same state can be merged:
> Values for `severity' don't match:
>  #10266 has `grave';
>  #14023 has `'

I'm not very happy with the bug tracking system not allowing a merge of
bugs with different severity. IMO, in cases like the one above, the absent
severity should be ignored, and the merge should get the non-empty severity.
In the general case, IMO, the merged bug should get the highest severity
value of its constituents as its severity value.

Ray
-- 
LEADERSHIP  A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch 
it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.       
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan

--- 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: