On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:28:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 23:42 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I don't know if it's feasible, but my ideal vision for how the new > > version tracking would handle bugs in stable would be that if the > > version in stable is affected, the bug is left open if it's tagged > > sarge or if it's of RC severity; otherwise the bug is archived normally. > > I don't even see a reason to special-case "security", most such bugs are > > going to be of RC severity and the others can be tagged with the > > per-suite tag just as we've been doing. > This isn't great for the "maintainer view" of the bugs. As maintainer, > I can't do anything about bugs in stable, so I don't want to see them on > the bug list. Then use the (default) unstable view of the BTS, where they will be listed as closed bugs only? The question is whether the bugs should be *archived*, not whether they should be displayed by default as open. Though anyway, my whole point in suggesting that these bugs not be archived is that they're the ones that Joey's policy does appear to allow maintainers to do something about. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature