On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. No only if this is the only bug there. And even then -1 is questionable ... you should just not that in the bug. -1 means "pushing this update is harmful" not fixing a bug is not. It might have 5 bug fixes where one of the fix does not fix the problem. What do we gain by not pushing it? -1 for "does not fix a bug that is present in the current release" is in 99.99% of the cases nonsense. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
