Re: Release-critical Bugreport for August 27, 1999
On 1999/08/30, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 08:49:46PM +0200, Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> > > One could regard the behaviour of dinstall as some kind of a reference
> > > on this.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Isn't it obvious?
Not to me.
> Because dinstall's close feature is used much and
> if it's broken it should be fixed. Since I haven't seen a bug report
> against it and it's been in production use for some time now, I assume
> it's not broken ;-)
So if there is no bug report against something, it works correct?
> > What authority does dinstall have with respect to the bug
> > tracking system?
>
> This is not a question of authority.
You just said that because dinstall does it that way, and nobody objected,
that's the way things should be done. Therefore you assign at least some
authority to dinstall.
> > FWIW, IMHO bugs should be closed when they are fixed in the
> > distribution they were reported against. Just my two cents.
>
> Well, you have a point there, but in that case I should be able to
> reassign my bugs to a "release-manager" pseudopackage: I don't decide
> when my bugs get to be fixed in the stable tree.
Why? It's a bug that has not been fixed yet in your package in the released
version of Debian. Why should it be reassigned from your package to some
pseudopackage?
If an end user who uses the stable version finds the bug, [s]he checks the
bug web pages, and won't find it because it's listed under the
"release-manager pseudopackage" and not under the package it belongs to.
Why not simply set the severity to fixed until the package is in the stable
distribution?
- Ruud de Rooij.
--
ruud de rooij | ruud@ruud.org | http://ruud.org
Reply to: