> I noticed a general tendency to close bugs affecting stable before > pushing the fix to stable. > Right.
> The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and > _known_ regression in stable, which could be easily avoided. > As already detailed by others, most of the time these bugs involve problems that existed in stable all the time and were fixed in a newer ~arch version. So, no regression. While I understand and applaud your intentions, I dont really intend to keep gazillions of bugs open until the last arch has closed the last stablerequest. Just for the simple reason that this is dead wood in bugzilla, and blocking the view to bugs that actually still need fixing. Also, we dont necessarily know from the beginning which revision will go stable. (BTW, x86 is a bit behind at the moment. :) We might think about a dedicated application for tracking stabilizations, instead of using bugzilla. Alternatively, one could extend bugzilla in a way that each closed bug report MUST contain an affected package version *range*. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
