On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:02:21 +0200 Lubomir Kundrak <lkundrak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 10:40 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>> "LK" == Lubomir Kundrak <lkundrak@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > LK> Or are we going to handle that in another way? SFM? > > > > If the problem is bodhi closing bugs that may need to remain open to > > track the issue in different branches, wouldn't it be far simpler > > for bodhi to grow the option to just not close referenced tickets? > > That way we could record information about which branches have been > > fixed in a freeform manner and not push a ton of flags or cloned > > tickets. > > If we went the flags way, it would imply modification similar to this > to Bodhi. So there would need to be a flag for each supported release? Not sure if bugzilla can handle that. I seem to remember that the number of flags that can exist was limited. If however it can do this that might be a nice way to track things... Also, it would be nice if we added an alias for the CVE for a bug... so we could go to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/CVE-2007-NNNNN and get the bug. There was discussion about having someone from the security team ack 'Security' marked bugs in bodhi before they are pushed out. If we get that in place, we could just have that person close the bug, rather than have bodhi do so. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-security-list mailing list Fedora-security-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-security-list
