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

Bug#535359: excuses.php is confused about ICU

Package: qa.debian.org

(sorry, resending with Package pseudoheader.  Duh.)

(Release team: ICU 4.0.1-3 might need a hint to transition to testing
once its 10 days are up...see below for details.)

Whatever excuses.php calls (update-excuses?) is confused about RC bug
530568, reported against the experimental version of ICU.  It now seems
to think that transitioning ICU to testing will introduce this bug, but
this bug does not apply to the unstable version.  Maybe the confusion is
because the unstable version is newer in time than the experimental
version, but I haven't looked at the code.

Here is an abbreviated chronology:

 1.  2009-05-25: RC bug 530568 was reported against ICU 4.2-1 (experimental)

 2.  2009-06-27: Version 4.0.1-3 uploaded to unstable

 3.  2009-06-28: bug 530568 closed for version 4.2.1~rc1-3
     (experimental) and also explicitly marked "notfound" in 4.0.1-3

http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=icu reports

Excuse for icu

  * Too young, only 4 of 10 days old
  * icu (source) has new bugs!
  * Updating icu introduces new bugs: #530568
  * Not considered

In fact, updating ICU does not introduce new RC bugs.  I imagine that
there is either a problem in the excuses code or that I have done
something wrong with respect to telling the BTS which versions of the
package contain this bug.  It seems to me that the logic should be that,
if a bug applies to version X, it should apply automatically to version
Y if Y > X, not if Y was uploaded more recently than X.  But I'm only
guessing about the age anyway since I haven't looked at the code.

If it makes a difference, I closed the bug manually with a -done message
that contained a Version: pseudo header because I accidentally put the
wrong bug number in the ChangeLog.  But I think I sent my done message
correctly, and the BTS seems to have an accurate idea of which versions
contain the bug.

Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>

Reply to: