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