Re: Processed: Reassigning xserver-xfree86 bugs
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 13:52 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:14 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >
> >>> 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?
Fine with me, the above would just be the 'end game' once a package
vanishes completely. :)
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
Reply to: