Requesting a change to the BugStatusWorkFlow: Closed/UPSTREAM

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Jan 20 17:42:13 UTC 2012


On 01/20/2012 05:55 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Ralf Corsepius [20/01/2012 15:25] :
>>
>> ... and why no simply keep these BZs "open" and/or to add a note
>
> Because the bug isn't open.
Surely the bug is open: The product you are supposed to be responsible 
for (A Fedora package) suffers from an unfixed bug, documented in bugzilla.

 > There's nothing more to do on it in its present
 > state
Surely, there are things to be done.

- Others might be able to fix it.
- You can cross check if its fixed in the next upstream release

 > and having it show up in lists of open bugs is
 > counter-productive
This logic escapes me - A reporter has reported a bug in your package 
and has are informed you about, so you know about it.

All you are doing by closing is to switch off a semi-automated checklist 
you'd better off checking your package for (== QA) when 
modifying/updating it.

Yes, this means effort, but it should be part of a packager's QA 
routine. People not doing so work careless.




More information about the devel mailing list