----- Original Message ----- > On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 04:26 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > What is the underlying problem here anyway? > > > I've never been hugely convinced there is one, but the problem people > > > *claim* there is is that closing bugs on EOL releases gives a bad > > > impression to people who report the bugs. > > > > We're terrible at numbers, but subjectively, people complain to me about > > this at conferences a lot. > > > > > Why do you think they're any more likely to get a response if the bug > > > stays open? > > > > Here's one case: a relatively stable package where there are small RFE > > bugs, > > or spelling fixes, or packaging improvements which are clearly right but > > have low practical impact. > > There is a kind of magic trick for this: if you set a bug to be against > Rawhide and give it the FutureFeature keyword (which is our 'official > way' of identifying RFEs), it won't ever be re-based to a stable release > at Branch time, and hence won't ever get EOLed. That's a bit secret > sauce-y, though. It's a bit more hidden, right. I try to communicate during Rawhide rebase, but adjusting EOL warning is not a bad idea at all. Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
