On 24/01/08 at 21:04 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-24 20:44]: > > What's the best way to deal with bugs from packages that are removed > > from unstable? Currently, they are not closed when a package is removed. > > I can see two solutions: > > - Close them. However, they might still affect stable or oldstable. So > > closing them without a version might lead people to thinking that the > > bug is solved. And I'm not sure that closing them with a version is a > > solution either: there's no version we can use to indicate that a > > package was removed. > > - Leave them open and ignore them. However, it prevents them from being > > archived. I'm not sure if bugs that don't affect unstable, testing, > > stable or oldstable, but are not closed, are automatically archived? > > FWIW, this is something I'm taking care of (at least in theory). In > the past, I closed all bug reports from packages that were removed. > Some people were unhappy about this but it was the best solution we > had. This changed with the introduction of version tracking. The > idea now is to close them with a fake version number that is higher > than the version that was removed (maybe something like version+removed). > Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to write some scripts to do > that, and I'm getting way behind. In fact, I haven't closed any bugs > since July. :( I guess it's time to ask for volunteers to write such > a script.
I think that the BTS learns the hierarchy of packages' versions by parsing the changelogs. Would your plan work even if the version is a fake one (not in any changelog)? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
