| 1 |
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:34 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." |
| 2 |
<phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and |
| 4 |
> _known_ regression in stable, which could be easily avoided. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
How can you have a regression in stable if stable has the bug already? |
| 7 |
A regression is when you have a stable package with a bug, then you |
| 8 |
introduce a new stable package that doesn't have that bug, and then |
| 9 |
you introduce yet another new stable package that has the same bug |
| 10 |
back again. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
While I can see some value in tracking whether bugs have made it to |
| 13 |
stable yet, I think we need better tools if we want to do that. |
| 14 |
Otherwise it is a big housekeeping mess tracking what is and isn't in |
| 15 |
stable yet. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I see the value when we're talking about security bugs, or very |
| 18 |
critical bugs, but for the run-of-the-mill minor issues that are the |
| 19 |
majority of bug reports I don't see the value in keeping bugs open for |
| 20 |
a month or two just to track that the inevitable hasn't happened yet. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives