On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:50:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > Also I don't think that "Patched" as a description for tag 'patch' is > correct. The bug has not been patched, there just is a _proposed_ patch > available. There is no certainty that the patch is either correct or will > be accepted by the maintainer.
If it's known to be incorrect or the maintainer's not going to accept
it, the patch tag isn't appropriate:
A patch or some other easy procedure for fixing the bug is included
in the bug logs. If there's a patch, but it doesn't resolve the bug
adequately or causes some other problems, this tag should not be
used.
> What do others think of the new, extended subdivision of bugs?
> Personally I don't see enough difference in status between "unclassified"
> and "moreinfo" to warrant separating them.
The idea is that a maintainer can divide bugs by the actions needed:
* patch: apply the patch, build, test, upload
* moreinfo: no action -- waiting for more info
* wontfix: no action -- won't fix anyway
* unclassified: reproduce, analyse, come up with solutions
* confirmed: analyse, come up with solutions
Bugs tagged "help", "unreproducible", and "upstream" aren't separated
out from unclassified at the moment; maybe "confirmed" shouldn't be
split from unclassified.
Thanks for the polite feedback, it's appreciated.
For those who preferred the bugs not broken up, visit
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/cookies.cgi?oldview=yes
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
