Bug#737208: RFS: linuxlogo/5.11-4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 02/03/2014 02:46 AM, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
> I do not want to close old bugs. Just asking, what will happen with
> bugs for older versions that e.g. are not used anywhere no more? Will
> these bugs hang forever or is there a cleaning policy ?
Whether to close a bug has, AFAIK, nothing to do with whether the
version it was reported against is still in use. It's entirely about
whether the bug exists in current packaged versions.
If the bug is still valid - meaning, mostly, if the behavior described
in the bug A: is in fact considered a bug and B: still exists in the
current version - the bug should remain open, even if that means
remaining open forever.
If the behavior described in the bug no longer exists in the current
version, but for some reason the bug wasn't closed when the fix was
first released, then I'd imagine that the bug should be closed manually
(with a comment explaining that the bug is know to be fixed as of
such-and-such a version).
In the specific case of the bug you tried to close (twice) in the
changelog which led to this subthread discussion, the correct thing to
do is not clear at a glance. This is because you gave two different
explanations of why you were closing it, and the two explanations
disagree with one another.
One explanation was "upstream won't fix". This seems to imply that the
behavior described does still exist in the current packaged version, and
that upstream has refused to change it.
I believe that would be handled one of two ways:
* Decide that the behavior described isn't really a bug after all, and
close the bug report.
* Decide that the behavior is a bug, and leave the bug report open to
reflect the fact that the behavior still exists in the current packaged
version.
The other explanation was "not relevant anymore". This seems to imply
that the behavior described no longer exists in the current packaged
version, but that for some reason the bug wasn't closed when the change
actually occurred.
I think that in that case, the correct thing to do would be to close the
bug report manually (not via a changelog entry), with a comment
explaining that the bug is known to have been fixed sometime before
version Such-and-such. I'm not an expert on these matters, however.
I hope that helps. (And that I haven't gotten anything wrong anywhere.)
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=brz9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: