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:
pgp3jslgd4KX9.pgp
Description: PGP signature