Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-28 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Paul Wise wrote: > In the absence of version tags, the only way to infer the "and > wasn't present before" part would be to map timestamps (of bugs and > uploads) to versions (of bugs and uploads). Though the BTS actually has that information available (and uses it to handle a

Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:49:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > On Nov 24, 2007 11:05 PM, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:52:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > > > azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to > > > testing? > > Bec

Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-28 Thread Paul Wise
On Nov 29, 2007 10:11 AM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see how you get the "and wasn't present before" part of > > > that. Surely this is exactly what version tagging is for? > > > > Only way would be to map dates to versions. > > Not the "only way"; the BTS already has the

Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-28 Thread Ben Finney
[Please preserve attribution lines on quoted material, so we can see who said what in your message.] "Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Nov 29, 2007 9:48 AM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a > > > new RC bug has

Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-28 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:49:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a new RC > bug has been submitted, it's a rather likely situation that the bug is > present in unstable and wasn't present before. That's why you use reportbug, so the versi

Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-28 Thread Paul Wise
On Nov 29, 2007 9:48 AM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a new RC > > bug has been submitted, it's a rather likely situation that the bug is > > present in unstable and wasn't present before. > > I don't see how you get the "and

Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-28 Thread Ben Finney
"Shaun Jackman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Nov 24, 2007 11:05 PM, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because there's no version information on bug #449176, so britney > > concludes that both the old and new versions of the package are > > equally buggy. > > That does not seem lik

Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-28 Thread Shaun Jackman
On Nov 24, 2007 11:05 PM, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:52:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > > azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to > > testing? > > Because there's no version information on bug #449176, so britney concludes

Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-24 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:52:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to > testing? Because there's no version information on bug #449176, so britney concludes that both the old and new versions of the package are equally buggy. -- St

RC buggy package migrated to testing

2007-11-24 Thread Shaun Jackman
azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to testing? Cheers, Shaun On Nov 24, 2007 4:39 PM, Debian testing watch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FYI: The status of the azureus source package > in Debian's testing distribution has changed. > > Previous version: 2.5.0.4-1 >