Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Russ Allbery [Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:47:12 -0700]:
>> Unfortunately, for a package with a moderate number of bugs (10-30), it
>> adds a lot of clutter without a lot of clarity. Because of that, it
>> would be great if there were some option down in the s
* Russ Allbery [Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:47:12 -0700]:
> Unfortunately, for a package with a moderate number of bugs (10-30), it
> adds a lot of clutter without a lot of clarity. Because of that, it would
> be great if there were some option down in the settings section that would
> let one turn off t
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:28:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> This isn't great for the "maintainer view" of the bugs. As maintainer,
> I can't do anything about bugs in stable, so I don't want to see them on
> the bug list.
They'd appear as a resolved bug in the default view, so shouldn'
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:28:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 23:42 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know if it's feasible, but my ideal vision for how the new
> > version tracking would handle bugs in stable would be that if the
> > version in stable is affe
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 23:42 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't know if it's feasible, but my ideal vision for how the new
> version tracking would handle bugs in stable would be that if the
> version in stable is affected, the bug is left open if it's tagged
> sarge or if it's of RC severity;
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:45:47AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Having those bugs classified as "patched" IMO gives the wrong impression
> > to casual readers (read non-developers) as it indicates that the problem
> > has already been fixed.
> > I personall
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.30.0729 +0200]:
>> How about adding documentation to the bugs.debian.org webpage?
>
> How about a patch? Writing the documentation yourself has the added
> benefit that you won't need it in t
Helmut Wollmersdorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>> In an perfect world a maintainer would review each patch as it is
>> submitted and remove the tag if the patch is not good.
> In common sense a patch is a proposed solution for a bug, independent
> from the author (bug submit
Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 29 August 2005 21:59, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:50:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
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 cau
also sprach Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.30.2111
+0200]:
> Shorter: "with patch" (which could be moved to "with good patch" if the tag
> +patch and +confirmed where used?
Confirmed is a tag used when the maintainer can reproduce the bug,
not when the patch is confir
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:45:47AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Having those bugs classified as "patched" IMO gives the wrong impression
> > to casual readers (read non-developers) as it indicates that the problem
> > has already been fixed.
>
> > I per
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO it's useful to split out confirmed. For packages with large bug
> lists, splitting confirmed from still-be-to-be-analysed reports is a big
> improvement.
I think the new classification is very useful for packages with lots of
bugs. It makes the b
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Having those bugs classified as "patched" IMO gives the wrong impression
> to casual readers (read non-developers) as it indicates that the problem
> has already been fixed.
> I personally read "patched" as synonymous to "patch has been applied",
> which is
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:59:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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
> * un
On Monday 29 August 2005 21:59, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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 certaint
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:43:52AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'd kind-of hope it wouldn't be an issue in practice -- security bugs
> that're fixed in unstable ought to have the fix for stable uplaoded
> within 28 days anyway, shouldn't they?
Well, there's the mozilla packages, for one example
also sprach Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.30.0729 +0200]:
> How about adding documentation to the bugs.debian.org webpage?
How about a patch? Writing the documentation yourself has the added
benefit that you won't need it in the future anymore.
--
Please do not send copies of
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.29.2028 +0200]:
>> Which tags are used for classification? sarge et al.? Would it make
>> sense to tag a bug "sarge" if it is reported against the version in
>> sarge (even though this is technic
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Would it be possible to include such information in the bug-specific
> page as well, or at least a link to obtain it?
Well, anything's possible. The versioning checks are somewhat slow and
cumbersome at the moment; so they're only d
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 b
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:50:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> 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.
Generally I think it's quite useful. However, and sl
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:50:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> What do others think of the new, extended subdivision of bugs?
In general more control of the sorting would be nicer. Right now
there's an awful lot of categories which I'm finding makes bug listings
a lot more cluttered without adding
* Frans Pop:
> Hmm. IMO listing bugs without those tags as "Unclassified" is confusing,
> especially with the emphasis that is now put on it. It implies that
> action is required where I think that is not always the case.
A public page listing only "unclassified" bugs also suggests that
there a
On Monday 29 August 2005 20:31, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.29.2022 +0200]:
> These classes reflect the tags on the bugs therein.
> "Patched"
> "More information needed"
> "Will not fix"
> ...
Hmm. IMO listing bugs without those tags as "Uncl
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050829 20:39]:
> Oh, this seems to imply that security bugs must be tagged sarge
> manually, otherwise the bug will soon disappear from the radar
> screen. 8-(
>
> Is it acceptable if this tag is set by non-maintainers?
yes.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
* martin f. krafft:
> also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.29.2028 +0200]:
>> Which tags are used for classification? sarge et al.? Would it make
>> sense to tag a bug "sarge" if it is reported against the version in
>> sarge (even though this is technically incorrect)?
>
> Ple
also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.29.2028 +0200]:
> Which tags are used for classification? sarge et al.? Would it make
> sense to tag a bug "sarge" if it is reported against the version in
> sarge (even though this is technically incorrect)?
Please read the announcement abo
also sprach Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.29.2022 +0200]:
> What is "Unclassified" all about?
These classes reflect the tags on the bugs therein.
"Patched"
"More information needed"
"Will not fix"
...
I am not sure what happens when there's a +patch+wontfix.
--
Please do not s
* Mark Brown:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:22:32PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> On Monday 29 August 2005 20:12, martin f krafft wrote:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=openvpn&archive=no&version=&dist=stable
>
>> What is "Unclassified" all about?
>
> No tags that it cho
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:22:32PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 29 August 2005 20:12, martin f krafft wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=openvpn&archive=no&version=&dist=stable
> What is "Unclassified" all about?
No tags that it chooses to use for classifi
On Monday 29 August 2005 20:12, martin f krafft wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=openvpn&archive=no&version=&dist=stable
What is "Unclassified" all about?
pgp7ADUQqwFW9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* martin f. krafft:
> also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.29.1957 +0200]:
>> 2.0-1 is the sarge version, but the report has been closed
>> nevertheless.
>
> That's all good and well. It still shows up as outstanding when you
> apply the sarge filter:
>
>
> http://bugs.debian
also sprach Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.29.1957 +0200]:
> 2.0-1 is the sarge version, but the report has been closed
> nevertheless.
That's all good and well. It still shows up as outstanding when you
apply the sarge filter:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pk
Could someone who is familiar with the new BTS have a look at #324167,
please?
The BTS has corectly record this data:
Found in version openvpn/2.0-1;
Fixed in version openvpn/2.0.2-1
2.0-1 is the sarge version, but the report has been closed
nevertheless.
Is it still necessary to manually
34 matches
Mail list logo
