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

Re: remote bug tracking system doesn't look at versions

Le Dim 28 Mai 2006 18:50, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> Package: bugs.debian.org
> Severity: serious
> this bug is fixed for 4.1; with these changes you invalidate the
> information kept in the Debian BTS. Please fix it, or stop it.
> If you do want to do it correct, you have to keep information, which
> package is built from which branch.
> bts-link-upstream@lists.alioth.debian.org writes:
> > #
> > # bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-4.1
> > # see
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg00001.html
> > #
> >
> > user bts-link-upstream@lists.alioth.debian.org
> >
> > # remote status report for #356569
> > #  * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR26757
> > #  * remote status changed: NEW -> REOPENED
> > usertags 356569 - status-NEW
> > usertags 356569 + status-REOPENED
> >
> > thanks

I completely fail to see where any problem lies here.. the mail you 
quote only changes usertags, that are used as a storage of the current 
upstream bugs statuses. and sorry, but upstream bug PR26757 is 
*REOPENED* and that's the information I store. So it does what it's 
supposed to do.

I never, (like in never ever) reopen bugs, I only track upstream status 
changes and in *some*[1] cases changes the fixed-upstream/wontfix tags 
accordingly. Like tbm said on the lists, fixed-upstream is (like the 
`fixed' state) an information that the maintainer just has to 
ackowledge/validate adding the valuable versions it needs. I will NEVER 
EVER touch the closed/open state of a debian bug, and I even don't 
fight against fixed-upstream/wontfix tags changes from you.

So please explain what was done wrong here ?

I will be happy to implement what you consider beeing the best way to 
work for bts-link... 

I Cc: debian-devel, because I'd like that people really tell what they 
need, and want to happen with bts-link. Those quite aggressive bug 
reports, that are even not accurate, do not help.

there is a few concern people have with bts-link, and all of them are 
worked on (especially the uri's issues on the BTS, that are not 
interpreted correctly). I am open to any suggestion, for the second 
time Matthias, could you please use less offending ways to express 
them, especially when it's clear to everyone that my goal is to improve 
and soften the work conditions of the maintainers, and not to fight 
against them, I've more interesting things to do.

 [1] those case are when an upstream bug status goes from a open state
     to a closed state or the reverse.
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgplgSxqzCKxv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: