> I noticed a general tendency to close bugs affecting stable before
> pushing the fix to stable.
> 
Right.

> The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and
> _known_ regression in stable, which could be easily avoided.
>
As already detailed by others, most of the time these bugs involve problems 
that existed in stable all the time and were fixed in a newer ~arch version. 
So, no regression.

While I understand and applaud your intentions, I dont really intend to keep 
gazillions of bugs open until the last arch has closed the last stablerequest. 
Just for the simple reason that this is dead wood in bugzilla, and blocking 
the view to bugs that actually still need fixing. Also, we dont necessarily 
know from the beginning which revision will go stable.

(BTW, x86 is a bit behind at the moment. :)

We might think about a dedicated application for tracking stabilizations, 
instead of using bugzilla. Alternatively, one could extend bugzilla in a way 
that each closed bug report MUST contain an affected package version *range*.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing
dilfridge@g.o
http://www.akhuettel.de/