Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> writes: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2025 at 03:48:01PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: >> On 2025-09-06 15:41:05 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: >> > On Sat, Sep 06, 2025 at 03:35:41PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: >> > > On 2025-09-06 13:09:38 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: >> > > > Closing FTBFS bugs when they are only fixed in experimental is >> > > > misleading. >> > > >> > > No, it's not. The BTS has version tracker for ages (even in Debian time >> > > scales). >> > >> > Yes, it is misleading for anybody looking at the web page and seeing >> > the bug at the very end of the page and closed. Not everybody uses UDD >> > to get bug information, there are still human beings browsing the web >> > pages to get information. >> >> If anyone opens the bug, they will see the information with versions >> affected by the bug at the very top. For every other tool, where open RC >> bugs make a difference (auto removal, testing migraton), also >> understand version this. There is nothing gained from leaving bugs that >> are only fixed in experimental open. > > Nothing gained? Visibility. You admit that the end user using the web > interface still needs to open the bug in the browser to see the > versions affected, and only then the end user would realize that there > is *still* work to do.
Wouldnt that logic suggest that all bugs that also affect stable to be left open until the next stable release? (that doesnt seem helpful to me?)
