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

Re: reopening bugs closed by removal after package reintroduction?

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:15 AM Paul Wise wrote:

> One of the tasks needed when reintroducing packages after they have
> been removed is that the bugs that were closed by the removal need to
> be triaged and either reopened or version closing information added

Some discussion from #debian-devel:

<pabs> anyone have any thoughts on reopening bugs closed by removal
after package reintroduction?
[🔎] 546c2c3d77eaef6dc2b26c7ed7663f16df847bda.camel@debian.org">https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[🔎] 546c2c3d77eaef6dc2b26c7ed7663f16df847bda.camel@debian.org
<ScottK> If they're still valid, I don't see why not.
<pabs> theres no way to know if they are without doing triage
<pabs> so the options are either: 1) auto-reopen the bugs and force
the maintainer to do the triage 2) expect the maintainer to have read
devref and do the triage, which means it won't always happen 3) have a
dedicated team for the triage and have them possibly annoy
maintainers, make mistakes since they don't know the package etc
<ScottK> If I were a member of such a hypothetical team, I think I'd
contact the maintainer and ask them if they want the help.
<ScottK> Then pick what you do based on that.
<olly> i suppose you could also ask the reporter to reopen if the bug
is still relevant for the reintroduced version
<olly> none of the options seems great for all situations though
<olly> I've also noticed a related issue when a new upstream version
gets a new package name and then the old package is later removed and
all open bugs against it auto-closed
<olly> i try to reproduce then reopen+reassign for bugs that I've
reported, but the close message doesn't particularly encourage doing
<pabs> yeah, the same happens for versioned packages python3.1 etc
<olly> pabs: oh sorry, i missed that you already made the point about
versioned packages in your email
<pabs> olly: your point also applies to renamed packages rather than
versioned ones, which I hadn't thought of in my mail, so thanks :)

There were also a couple of +1 on reopening and a question about how
often packages get reintroduced (see the dd-list).



Reply to: