On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:08:42 am Nico Golde wrote: > Hi Steffen, > > * Steffen Joeris <steffen.joeris@skolelinux.de> [2008-09-09 18:10]: > > On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:14:28 pm Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > > On Mon, September 8, 2008 13:09, white@alioth.debian.org wrote: > > > > Regression fixed in wordnet > > > > > > > > - - wordnet 1:3.0-12 (medium; bug #497441) > > > > + - wordnet 1:3.0-13 (medium; bug #497441) > > > > > > Since the regression doesn't have security implications, wouldn't it be > > > more accurate to keep the fixed-version at 1:3.0-12? > > > > I thought about it as well, but if I recall correctly, we have always > > treated regressions (also the ones that just introduced normal bugs) like > > this. But I might be off here, so if you are sure go ahead and revert it. > > I disagree, as I already wrote in the bug report 1:3.0-12 > includes all security fixes and I don't think we should > track issues in corner case use cases as they might pop out > way later than the issue was fixed. Ok, I have reverted the commit, but added a NOTE about the regression bug. This way it should be clear for everyone in the future what happened with the wordnet fix. Cheers Steffen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.