Hi! On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 17:24:57 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sat 17 Dec 2022 at 04:43PM +01, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Sorry, probably my fault! As I tend to use «Fixes:» git pseudo-fields > > for things that fix part of a bug, but are not intended yet to close it, > > for which I use «Closes:». > > > > And for some reason I think I also got the impression, even though > > the stanza changes had been committed, they could still be backed out. > > (BTW I've now gone over the wiki and updated all paragraph references > > that applied to stanza.) > > > > In any case, I've sat down and gone over the meat of the original > > report. See below. >· > We're sticking with 'stanza', and in light of that, could you confirm > that the bug is reopened in order to make additional fixes, rather than > back anything else out?
In case my other replies to Russ didn't make this clear. This comment was in reference to the various replies in the sub-thread started by Charles, where it looked to me like whether to back that out was still an open question for the editors. In any case, as I mentioned, given the changes being included in the release, I took that as indeed, sticking with the term, and that's why I reopened and submitted the actual changes this original report was intending on requesting. :) As an aside I've since updated the dpkg code and docs to refer to these as stanzas everywhere applicable. Thanks, Guillem
