On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 19:09 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 14:42 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > > Looking for a couple of +1s to the final housekeeping routine for the > > Fedora 13 release which is to close all open Fedora 11 bugs after it > > goes EOL on 2010-06-25. > > > > PLEASE proofread what will will happen, including the comment to be > > added to the bugs. Last time I went through this process here I made a > > major goof nobody caught :) > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora13#Fedora_11_EOL_Closure > > > Possibly bikeshedding here, but would it be better to change the wording > slightly: > If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version > - of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. > + of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug report, updating > + the "version" field accordingly. > > i.e. are we referring to reopening that specific bug report within our > database, rather than in a more loose sense referring to opening a new > bug report against the same notional issue (if that makes sense). As a > maintainer, I'd prefer to have the old unfixed report reopened, rather > than have a new bug report that's a duplicate; sometimes there's > valuable information in the comments. The problem with that is that only the bug owner or someone with editbugs privileges (which happens to be quite a lot of people when it comes to Fedora, but definitely not all reporters) can change the version field. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
