On 11/09/16 at 22:28 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:53:34PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 11/09/16 at 12:33 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > Tags: stretch sid > > > > > > This bug should not happen in stretch (yet) because diffutils 3.5 > > > has not entered stretch (yet), are you sure it's correct to tag > > > it stretch in those cases? > > > > What 'stretch sid' really means is "this doesn't affect stable". There's > > no better way to express that. > > Ah, ok. > > > Even if the bug is tagged "stretch sid", normal BTS version-tracking is > > still applied, so if the affected version isn't in stretch, it won't > > be seen as affecting stretch. > > That's precisely the little problem I wanted to point out: > > The "affected" version (bzr 2.7.0+bzr6619-1) was both in stretch and sid, > but the bug could not be reproduced in stretch because diffutils 3.5 > (the package triggering this bug) was not in stretch yet. > > How would I ask the BTS if this was a bug in stretch? > > Assuming for a while that diffutils 3.5 did not enter testing yet, > would the BTS give the correct answer?
This is a case where there's no easy way to track affected releases. But in doubt, it's better to err on the side of considering a release affected. Lucas
