On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 02:03:34PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:29:35PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: > > Thank you everyone for the feedback.
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:41:10PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > afaiu block-proposed tags on bugs are not specific to any series, so you > > > are > > > blocking updates across all series. Not really desired. > > Following the thread you started, it seems that we can all agree to use > > block-proposed-<series> instead. Does this resolve your concern? > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 09:24:10PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > > Does this work sensibly, though? AFAIUI, the tools will set the bug > > > back to verification once you upload a follow up (at least if you > > > pass -v<version in -updates> to dpkg-buildpackage, which IIRC is > > > kind of expected, as otherwise bug closure emails end up weird). > Is this expectation, using -v<version in -updates>, something that > should be documented? I ask as when I was doing my SRU shift yesterday I > encountered an upload of a package which was following an upload in > -proposed with the block-proposed-<series> tag but -v was not used. I > went ahead and redid the upload and used -v but wonder if that should be > the policy. I agree this should be the policy and should be documented. As you and I discussed elsewhere, the impact of not using -v is that bugs that were fixed in previous uploads do not get auto-closed correctly by Launchpad if they are not listed in the correct field in the .changes file, causing confusion and delay. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
