Re: suite tags (Re: Doing some stable QA work)
Le August 15, 2008 01:39:23 am Steve Langasek, vous avez écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:35:39PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > Le August 14, 2008 11:08:10 pm Steve Langasek, vous avez écrit :
> > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:01:46PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > > > Tagging lenny and sid does not imply that other suites are free from
> > > > the bug,
> > >
> > > Yes, it does.
> >
> > Why would it?
>
> Because it always has.
Ehm, AFAIK Debian only exists since 15 years, so it should be possible to get
a more convincing reference if it's true. AFAIK, it never did, but for sure
it doesn't since 2005. It's granted that before the meaning change, the
implication could appear true in many bug reports.
>
> > > > so this unfortunately wouldn't help the graph. Moreover, "suite x"
> > > > doesn't mean anymore that the bug is found in suite x, but "This bug
> > > > should not be archived until it is fixed in suite x."
> > >
> > > Not unless there's been a regression since the last time I talked to
> > > Don about this.
> >
> > For current suites, the meaning was changed (see
> > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags ). Assuming that the tags whose
> > meaning changed were cleared when the change happened, this isn't a
> > regression, except that people who missed the announcement may of course
> > use the tag in error.
>
> No, I spoke with Don after that documentation was changed and explained why
> it was necessary to retain tags with the original meanings separate from
> the "suite-ignore" tags.
I don't understand what you mean by "retain tags with the original meanings
separate from the "suite-ignore" tags".
Reply to: