| 1 |
On Saturday 10 July 2010 19:21:28 Nuno J. Silva wrote: |
| 2 |
> (I asked this on IRC more than an hour ago, got no reply, so here goes |
| 3 |
> it to the list.) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> What's the policy when you think that a change made due to a FIXED bug |
| 6 |
> needs more changes? Should you just comment it, fill another bug or |
| 7 |
> change the state (I can't do the later, anyway)? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> As an example (the one I am dealing with, bug 283744), I found out a |
| 10 |
> package was changed to add a behavior which wasn't documented in the |
| 11 |
> ebuild. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> On one hand, the suggestion to add elog messages should belong to the |
| 14 |
> original bug (now RESOLVED FIXED). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> But on the other hand this is a new problem introduced by the fix for |
| 17 |
> that first bug, and then should have its own request. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> (And, as I can't change the first bug - which is FIXED, a separate bug |
| 20 |
> would be initially marked as OPEN, which suits the case of a new, IMHO |
| 21 |
> still unsolved issue.) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> But what's the most polite thing to do? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Open a new bug and refer to the old one. Let the bug owner decide what's the |
| 27 |
best thing to do next. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives