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.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
