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

Bug#369257: marked as done (remote bug tracking system doesn't look at versions)

Your message dated Mon, 29 May 2006 09:01:54 +0200
with message-id <[🔎] 200605290901.57692.pierre.habouzit@m4x.org>
and subject line Bug#369257: remote bug tracking system doesn't look at versions
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
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

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Le Lun 29 Mai 2006 03:40, Matthias Klose a écrit :

> the only thing that is correct. is the syntax. everything else is
> wrong. the messages should have been generated for gcc-snapshot (if
> at all), but not for 4.1.

debian bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=356569
is about gcc-4.1, look at it. if it should be about gcc-snapshot, then 
please triage your own bugs the right way.

> > 2) While I can do so, adding administrative prohibitions over
> > something which should be worked out between the GCC maintainers
> > and the btslink maintainers is not something that I'm going to do
> > as an initial step.
> that's difficult, emails to to
> bts-link-upstream@lists.alioth.debian.org are automatically rejected,
> if you're not subscribed. I really do not intend to subscribe to each
> system / ML, which sends bogus control messages.

that has been fixed, I wanted to do it before, and forgot about it I'm 
sorry. I remind that the first line of bts-link is a link to D-D-A 
where my own debian adress lies.

next mails will be sent with a reply-to on the bts-link-devel@ Mail 

> > What problems with the information in the BTS are you talking
> > about?
> the usertags, which are wrongly set and removed.

oh, that's new, since when, usertags of user *BTS-LINK-UPSTREAM*, and 
that have their own semantics, which is clear like I already said to 
you: bts-link-upstream tags are tags that tracks upstream 
STATUS/RESOLUTION. and I'm sorry but http://gcc.gnu.org/PR26757 has:
 * Status REOPENED => usertag status-REOPENED
 * Resolution None => no resolution usertag

> please don't get me wrong; generally the btslink information is
> useful, but I do see the BTS maintainers in charge as well, if the
> system is "misused". we did see this in the past with unreflected
> changes of the forwarded information, now with wrong usertags. what
> comes next?

please don't get me wrong, but even if that was an abuse, BTS 
maintainers have nothing to do with it. I repeat for the third and last 
time, for bug reports/improvements/whishes, please contact me (or 
better bts-link-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org). I'm sorry bts-link is 
not in the BTS, but I should package related tools soon so that there 
will be one, and a place in the BTS to send bugs to.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpf0dfrUKGMj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: