Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:24:34AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <email@example.com> writes:
> > You seem to confuse this with bug closing. It's common practice to
> > adjust the severity of a bug to a RC one if a RC issue was mistakenly
> > reported as non-RC, and neither your Developers Reference nor your
> > release team have ever disagreed with this practice.
> If you are also encountering the bug, then this is true, but I would
> expect you, being as knowledgeable as you are, to indicate that in the
> bug report and add yourself as a submitter.
I didn't know a bug can have more than one submitter.
What's the syntax for the email to control@bugs for adding a second
> > Even Steve had always agreed that missing dependencies that break
> > partial upgrades from woody were RC bugs And even in the email were he
> > downgraded this bug he only wrongly stated "This is not a missing
> > dependency" - not that missing dependencies weren't RC.
> This seems to indicate that he thinks there is a different explanation
> for the bug, and that while adding the package in question as a
> dependency makes it go away, this is not the correct fix. But I can
> only guess, as can you, which means it would be good to hold off
> until he can say rather than play BTS tag.
That's exactly the problem.
He has now given an explanation.
As I've said in another email in this thread, giving this explanation in
the email he lowered the severity with and sending me a Cc would have
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed