1 |
> I noticed a general tendency to close bugs affecting stable before |
2 |
> pushing the fix to stable. |
3 |
> |
4 |
Right. |
5 |
|
6 |
> The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and |
7 |
> _known_ regression in stable, which could be easily avoided. |
8 |
> |
9 |
As already detailed by others, most of the time these bugs involve problems |
10 |
that existed in stable all the time and were fixed in a newer ~arch version. |
11 |
So, no regression. |
12 |
|
13 |
While I understand and applaud your intentions, I dont really intend to keep |
14 |
gazillions of bugs open until the last arch has closed the last stablerequest. |
15 |
Just for the simple reason that this is dead wood in bugzilla, and blocking |
16 |
the view to bugs that actually still need fixing. Also, we dont necessarily |
17 |
know from the beginning which revision will go stable. |
18 |
|
19 |
(BTW, x86 is a bit behind at the moment. :) |
20 |
|
21 |
We might think about a dedicated application for tracking stabilizations, |
22 |
instead of using bugzilla. Alternatively, one could extend bugzilla in a way |
23 |
that each closed bug report MUST contain an affected package version *range*. |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
27 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
28 |
kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing |
29 |
dilfridge@g.o |
30 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |