On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 19:59, Matthias Klose wrote: > Jamin W. Collins writes: > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:28:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > I think he just wants them kept open until the old gcc versions get > > > removed from the archive. That does make a certain amount of sense. > > > > Could tag them with the release name that affected release name (woody, > > sarge, sid, etc...). It's what I've done with the Jabber bug reports > > that only affect the woody release. > > well, you can still get the version, when the bug was closed from the > changelog. If we do not close the bug, nobody will get a note that the > bug has been fixed (in the new default version). Bugs reported for 3.2 > have been closed when 3.3 became the default version, not earlier. > Surely you'd do something like this: clone <bugnumber> -1 reassign -1 gcc-3.2 tags -1 fixed thanks > what interest does Debian have in keeping these bugs open? > Because they are bugs in gcc-3.2, so prevent you getting duplicates all the time as well as let users know that to fix that problem they need to use gcc-3.3 instead. Scott
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part