| 1 |
On P, 2007-07-01 at 12:22 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hey all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for |
| 5 |
> removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis |
| 6 |
> that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get |
| 7 |
> closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reversed for whatever reason, |
| 8 |
> and the bugs fall through the cracks. Once the package is actually |
| 9 |
> deleted, the person removing it should go through bugzie and close any |
| 10 |
> open bugs. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I've been operating on the premise that I am the maintainer of the |
| 13 |
package in question and marking it as WONTFIX and making it depend on |
| 14 |
the removal bug while at it. I don't see what's wrong in that.. |
| 15 |
If the removal gets reverted, all the depending bugs should be seen and |
| 16 |
acted upon. Why should we keep bugs open in our maintainer bugs list if |
| 17 |
we are 99% sure the package will get removed? We aren't treecleaners |
| 18 |
project, but the maintainers of the packages whose bug we are marking |
| 19 |
WONTFIX with the almost certain assumption the package will get removed |
| 20 |
soon... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
With Regards, |
| 25 |
Mart Raudsepp |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
| 28 |
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio |
Archives