On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 02:00:04PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:06:29PM +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > (...) > > The 'reopen' command takes an optional submitter argument, so it was > > difficult to get a version in here unambiguously. Instead, we've > > introduced a new 'found' command, which says "I've found the bug in this > > version of the package". You can use this whether the bug is open or > > closed; if the bug's closed and you give a version more recent than the > > last recorded fixed version, the bug will be considered open again.
> > found 1234567 1.3-2 > > 'found' is now preferred to 'reopen' except when reopening bugs that > > were closed without a version (e.g. closed as invalid). > > When you mail nnnnnn-done without Version:, i.e. the old way of closing > > bugs, the bug tracking system does approximately what it always did and > > records the bug as closed for all versions of the package containing it. > > Obviously, this loses the benefits of version tracking, and is now > > intended only for pseudopackages and for closing bugs that were never > > bugs to start with. It's still OK to use 'reopen' in the traditional way > > to reopen such bugs in a versionless way, although the 'found' control > > command without a version number works too. > I was wondering, what is the correct way to handle when you're stupid > and close the wrong bug in changelogs ? (like i did with #321876, when i > intended to close #321976) AIUI, this falls under the use case described above for the "found" control command. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
