-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michel Dänzer wrote: > [ Did you intentionally not CC: debian-x? Feel free to quote this > there. ] No, I'm just very bad at Cc:ing properly. Redirecting.
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:14 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >>> and because it removes their >>> association with the old packages which are now gone in sid and testing >>> but which are still in stable and most likely still affected by them. >> They're not going to be fixed in stable if they're still present there, >> though, because of the stable update policy.... leaving them assigned to >> a package where they won't ever be fixed is sort of a recipe for >> ignoring them. > > Maybe, but it also helps prevent them from getting reported again > against the packages in stable. > > OTOH, I can say that old bugs cluttering up the current packages doesn't > exactly motivate me to work even on the current bugs... but maybe that's > just me. > > >>> The other XSF folks may not agree on this, but at any rate I think at >>> least a set of clear rules on how to handle this would be good. >> I kind of realized this after I'd started, hence stopping partway >> through. Sorry I didn't realize it earlier.... there's a very large >> volume of bugs here, and we do indeed have to come up with some sensible >> way to deal with them. I managed to spot some which were definitely >> fixed upstream and close them while I was at it. >> >> I'd rather not just close them all.... perhaps we should go on a more >> systematic effort to contact the submitters and close the ones where we >> don't get replies? > > Yeah, basically, I think we should only reassign bugs to the current > packages that have been confirmed to still be there. Then, once a > package goes away completely, close all its bugs that were attempted to > be confirmed without success. OK. It's significantly easier to close the bugs one at a time as they are "unconfirmed" because it allows me to keep track of which ones I've checked and which ones I haven't. That OK? > > >> FYI, The bugs which I *retitled* are bugs which have been proven to >> still be present. (Showing that some of the bugs are definitely still >> present. :-/) The ones which still have "xserver-free86" in the title >> are the ones which haven't been checked yet. In case you needed to tell >> the difference. > > Nice. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEmDXvRGZ0aC4lkIIRAt0NAJ9jLNt/ck5x8ml3g8VBNWSAyF7ExACcCLpX EvzwtUPIdb2Z365uAuLQFDQ= =xKcr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
