On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:48:25PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > In various discussions prior to the reintroduction of bug archiving, the > > > release team expressed the view that bugs of release-critical severity > > > should not be archived until they have explicitly fixed in stable > > > (according > > > to version-tracking), or have been explicitly marked as not applying to > > > stable (with suite tags). > > > There's currently no way to indicate that a bug explicitely doesn't > > apply to stable. > > Yes, there is: tags + lenny sid, or tags + lenny, or tags + oldstable > experimental, or...
The problem is that that set of tags is currently used as the default set to figure out when a bug is archived, not whether it applies to stable or not. > > What should be done is the opposite; RC bugs which should not be > > archived should be tagged etch, which will cause them not to be > > archived. > > This gives the wrong default behavior, and relies on someone recognizing the > bug and tagging it within a month of the closure for unstable. It can be tagged etch instantly; it doesn't affect archiving otherwise. Don Armstrong -- "Facts" are the refuge of people unwilling to reassess what they hold to be "True". http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
