On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:34 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
<phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote:
> The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and
> _known_ regression in stable, which could be easily avoided.

How can you have a regression in stable if stable has the bug already?
 A regression is when you have a stable package with a bug, then you
introduce a new stable package that doesn't have that bug, and then
you introduce yet another new stable package that has the same bug
back again.

While I can see some value in tracking whether bugs have made it to
stable yet, I think we need better tools if we want to do that.
Otherwise it is a big housekeeping mess tracking what is and isn't in
stable yet.

I see the value when we're talking about security bugs, or very
critical bugs, but for the run-of-the-mill minor issues that are the
majority of bug reports I don't see the value in keeping bugs open for
a month or two just to track that the inevitable hasn't happened yet.

Rich