On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 05:45:24PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:24:48 -0300 > Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian-ba.org> wrote: > > > #531002 made me bring this to -devel. It seems Debian BTS fails in > > #not offering > > an 'invalid' or 'notabug' tag for cases which are not covered by > > 'wontfix' [0]. I've found the following discussions about this issue: > > Just put a comment in the message to $number-done@bugs.debian.org that > you're closing the bug as invalid. Closing doesn't mean that the bug > has been accepted as valid. (That can be done with confirmed.) This could be used for 'wontfix' as well, so why do we need these tags once we can comment every situation? The thing is I consider important for a BTS making difference between what is an accepted (valid) bug and what is not after it is closed. Ok, you're right, this can be done with 'confirmed', but I'm not sure it would cover everything 'invalid' would cover (thinking). > > For me it doesn't make sense to mark something as "I will not fix" if > > actually there's nothing to fix. I'm curious to know how other > > maintainers have addressed such cases in BTS. > > Nothing to fix? close the bug. I don't see we need two different ways > to close a bug. Invalid would still close the bug. No, it's not about two different ways to close a bug. It's about a standard (extra) info which will be saved for future references, like 'wontifx' and others tags do. Regards, -- Tiago Bortoletto Vaz http://tiagovaz.org 0xA504FECA - http://pgp.mit.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature