Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Jon Stanley" <jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Jan 27, 2008 11:26 PM, Luke Macken <lmacken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Sorry for the confusion. Jon's proposal[0] was approved at the last FESCo > >> meeting, but it doesn't specify what to close the bugs as. John > >> Poelstra's bug workflow[1] page illustrates Jon's proposal, but specifies > >> that bugs be closed as RAWHIDE. > > > I'm not sure what the purpose of RAWHIDE here is....it's obviously not > > rawhide by the time that it hits stable. > > One other point here, if I haven't worn out my welcome. The > previously-cited page defining bug closure states says that RAWHIDE > "should not be used for RHEL bugs", but that is obviously a RHEL-centric > definition. I argue that in the context of Fedora, RAWHIDE should only > be used to close bugs filed against the current development version (ie, > rawhide) that don't exist in any released version. If a bug has gotten > into a release branch then it should get closed as ERRATA or > CURRENTRELEASE, as appropriate. To simplify things, if the current release for the package fixes the bug, CURRENTRELEASE. Doen't matter if the package is in F<X> or rawhide. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
