Re: Processed: Reassigning xserver-xfree86 bugs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michel Dänzer wrote:
> [ Did you intentionally not CC: debian-x? Feel free to quote this
> there. ]
No, I'm just very bad at Cc:ing properly. Redirecting.
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:14 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>> and because it removes their
>>> association with the old packages which are now gone in sid and testing
>>> but which are still in stable and most likely still affected by them.
>> They're not going to be fixed in stable if they're still present there,
>> though, because of the stable update policy.... leaving them assigned to
>> a package where they won't ever be fixed is sort of a recipe for
>> ignoring them.
>
> Maybe, but it also helps prevent them from getting reported again
> against the packages in stable.
>
> OTOH, I can say that old bugs cluttering up the current packages doesn't
> exactly motivate me to work even on the current bugs... but maybe that's
> just me.
>
>
>>> The other XSF folks may not agree on this, but at any rate I think at
>>> least a set of clear rules on how to handle this would be good.
>> I kind of realized this after I'd started, hence stopping partway
>> through. Sorry I didn't realize it earlier.... there's a very large
>> volume of bugs here, and we do indeed have to come up with some sensible
>> way to deal with them. I managed to spot some which were definitely
>> fixed upstream and close them while I was at it.
>>
>> I'd rather not just close them all.... perhaps we should go on a more
>> systematic effort to contact the submitters and close the ones where we
>> don't get replies?
>
> Yeah, basically, I think we should only reassign bugs to the current
> packages that have been confirmed to still be there. Then, once a
> package goes away completely, close all its bugs that were attempted to
> be confirmed without success.
OK. It's significantly easier to close the bugs one at a time as they
are "unconfirmed" because it allows me to keep track of which ones I've
checked and which ones I haven't. That OK?
>
>
>> FYI, The bugs which I *retitled* are bugs which have been proven to
>> still be present. (Showing that some of the bugs are definitely still
>> present. :-/) The ones which still have "xserver-free86" in the title
>> are the ones which haven't been checked yet. In case you needed to tell
>> the difference.
>
> Nice.
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEmDXvRGZ0aC4lkIIRAt0NAJ9jLNt/ck5x8ml3g8VBNWSAyF7ExACcCLpX
EvzwtUPIdb2Z365uAuLQFDQ=
=xKcr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: