On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:05:09 -0300 Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian-ba.org> wrote: > 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? wontfix does not close the bug - although maintainers differ on whether a wontfix bug ever gets closed. > 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). Any others can be covered within the comment. > > 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. Which is precisely what I don't think we need. There is no difference between "invalid" and "this is an invalid bug, closing". I'm sure a small shell script could generate a suitable command to bts to put the longer string in if you really want it. The bug still needs to closed with $number-done@b.d.o. As far as the BTS is concerned, a bug is either open or closed. I don't see that there is a need for a third category. FTR, I think bugzilla have got this wrong because, by distinguishing between CLOSED and FIXED bugs, the need for INVALID becomes obvious. Closed in the BTS does not have to mean FIXED in bugzilla speak, it just means closed - the problem has been dealt with, to quote the BTS. Dealing with the problem doesn't have to mean fixing it, it can mean telling the reporter that no such problem ever actually existed. Once you distinguish between 'closed' and 'fixed', 'invalid' becomes redundant IMHO. > It's about a > standard (extra) info which will be saved for future references, like > 'wontifx' and others tags do. The bug comment is always available. I've nothing a new invalid tag in the BTS per-se as long as it does *not* close the bug report, although that is not a particular improvement AFAICT over a combination of wontfix, unreproducible and moreinfo. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgpva5HNMK4qR.pgp
Description: PGP signature