More unhelpful update descriptions

[Adam Williamson]

On 2013-07-03 10:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:38:00 +0200
> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am 03.07.2013 18:21, schrieb Matthew Miller:
>> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:25:12AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> >>> Could be, but if the still broken bugs are going to be closed,
>> >>> when the update becomes stable
>> >> since when do bugs get magically closed?
>> >
>> > Since 2007 or so?
>> 
>> what sense makes this?
>> 
>> a new upstream-release does not implicitly close any bug
>> 
>> on the other hand it makes hardly sense to hold back a update
>> not fixing all bugreports - this all makes no sense for me
> 
> I think there's a misunderstanding here.
> 
> Bodhi doesn't do anything at all with bugs that are not attached to an
> update. How could it?
> 
> The bugs that are attached to an update are supposed to be fixed by
> that update. If they are not, you should -1 karma the update and if
> possible note in the bug that it's not fixed and help provide any info
> to the maintainer in bug.

As discussed up thread, this is not the current policy and I'd really 
prefer people don't do this. -1 is a Serious Thing, not to be used 
lightly.

If an update claims to fix multiple bugs and *does* fix some of them and 
doesn't make anything worse, it should be +1ed, not -1ed. If that leads 
to some bugs that weren't actually fixed being closed, we can re-open 
them. We should not delay useful fixes going out due to bureaucratic 
details.

(The update submitter can edit the not-fixed bugs out of the update 
before it goes stable to avoid them being closed, if s/he is paying 
sufficient attention.)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net