On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:38:00 +0200 Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. If the update has some bugs attached, but doesn't fix a bug that is NOT attached, you should NOT -1 karma for that bug not being fixed. It's not expected that it would be. You could note in that bug that the update doesn't fix it, but the maintainer probibly knows that or they would have also attached that bug to the update. Bodhi will (by default, but override able) close any bugs attached to an update when the update goes stable. If you find such a closed but that was not really fixed, reopen it or note to the maintainer in the bug and they can do so. Is that more clear? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
