On Tue January 8 2008, John Poelstra wrote: > Till Maas said the following on 01/08/2008 07:36 AM Pacific Time: > > fixedF7 > > fixedF8 > > fixedRawhide > > An interesting idea, but I think it would be better to be able to have > more specific "closed--resolved in" information vs. more flags. Do you mean, that the information which release of the package fixed the bug is missing here? > > "?" unfixed > > "-" wontfix > > "+" fixed > > " " unclear, whether it needs to be fixed. > > This is redundant and the same as the closed states we already have. Except that there can be only one state per bug and these values would be there for the several Fedora release flags. > > Then when F9 is released and the bug is still open: > > copy status from fixedRawhide to fixedF9 > > One month later, when F7 is EOL: > > remove fixedF7 flag. > > In case now all flags are "+" or "-", e.g. because the issue was fixed in > > F8 and F9 / Rawhide, close the bug with an explanation, that one needs to > > update the release to fix the bug. > > Who is going to be the flag person--more triagers? This is something that can easily be scripted and only needs to be done twice a year. Or what are you referring to? Regards, Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
