Re: Bug#97671: 88 Priority violations in woody
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:12:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > No, the reason bugs used to be closed when the package hit the
> > archive^Wpool^Wdists/unstable^Wwhatever was because only at that point
> > would the bug fix be available to the general public.
>
> I admit that does make sense. But the moment we started to have dinstall
> close bugs this was becoming less and less true because the delay was
> growing...
>
> I suppose if we can get a consensus, the FTP admins could get the bugs
> closed after, say, at least one mirror has finished with the update.
>
> It could send out 'tag pendingmirrorrun ......' messages to the BTS at the
> same time it sends closing messages right now.
I believe this is too much complexity for little gain.
Whenever you use a Closes statement, katie sends a message like this
to the submitter:
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
<foo>, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
If the "due to be installed" part is not clear enough, let's clarify it.
As a user, I prefer to receive this when the package is accepted than
to receive it later. The current system gives the user the freedom to
install the package from incoming.debian.org (if it's not a crypto
package). If we delayed the closing message, users would not have that
freedom. So as far as freedom is concerned, the current system is
better than the proposed delayed notification (and of course better
than the old queue system).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: