Mass closing EOL bugs should not close bugs with pending updates

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 17.02.2013, 14:46 +0100 schrieb Tadej Janež:
>> On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 12:02 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> >
>> > I found that a couple of F16 bugs were closed by endoflife at fp.o even
>> > though there were pending updates for F17 and F18 to fix them. As a
>> > result, the bugs are now closed WONTFIX even they were or are going to
>> > be fixed.
>>
>> What you describe is another example of strange behavior of the Fedora
>> EOL Closure script.
>> I discovered two related problems that I described three days ago:
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178649.html
>>
>> Since then I found a page that describes the Fedora 16 EOL Closure
>> procedure:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora18#Fedora_16_EOL_Closure
>>
>> It says that the bugs with "version == Fedora 16" and "status != CLOSED"
>> are subject to automatic closure. Could you give an example of a bug
>> that you described?
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-2359/lxpanel-0.5.12-1.fc18
> and
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-2359/lxpanel-0.5.12-1.fc17
> fix several bugs, among them two very old and annoying ones:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782431 and
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785906
>
> As you can see the bugs were already ON_QA before they were closed
> WONTFIX.
>

But those are bugs filed against Fedora 16. Will Fedora 16 receive the
fix at this point? No. Hence WONTFIX is correct.

Either the person who filed the bug, or the assignee could have bumped
the bug's Fedora version in the given timeframe, but they did not. I
think the 28 day period was sufficient amount of time to react.

Best,
Orcan