From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I59aG-0004yQ-V0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:16:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l620EqP7014479; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 00:14:52 GMT Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee (smtp-out.neti.ee [194.126.126.39]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l620D2HG012229 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 00:13:02 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by MXR-4.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC05234BC9 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 03:13:02 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.4.3 (20060930) (Debian) at neti.ee Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (MXR-2.estpak.ee [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c7JqLsPMjtGx for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 03:13:01 +0300 (EEST) Received: from Relayhost3.neti.ee (relayhost3.estpak.ee [88.196.174.169]) by MXR-4.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7A622F1ED for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 03:13:01 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages From: Mart Raudsepp To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-br+no9FDxhE8oe4Zui6G" Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:12:07 +0300 Message-Id: <1183335128.26588.6.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 X-Archives-Salt: c73741c0-b871-4e4f-9f43-abe9816bbf3b X-Archives-Hash: ce13d895c082ae91a730d58024769e68 --=-br+no9FDxhE8oe4Zui6G Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On P, 2007-07-01 at 12:22 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > Hey all, >=20 > just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for > removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis > that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get > closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reversed for whatever reason, > and the bugs fall through the cracks. Once the package is actually > deleted, the person removing it should go through bugzie and close any > open bugs. I've been operating on the premise that I am the maintainer of the package in question and marking it as WONTFIX and making it depend on the removal bug while at it. I don't see what's wrong in that.. If the removal gets reverted, all the depending bugs should be seen and acted upon. Why should we keep bugs open in our maintainer bugs list if we are 99% sure the package will get removed? We aren't treecleaners project, but the maintainers of the packages whose bug we are marking WONTFIX with the almost certain assumption the package will get removed soon... --=20 With Regards, Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: leio@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio --=-br+no9FDxhE8oe4Zui6G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGiELXkeYb6olFHJcRAmOFAJ9gjwFuBnUe2UcLhe/BY+jIvmQYwQCg1pJK jofXiSAWpwU6JHGT1hjM+9g= =Oc6s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-br+no9FDxhE8oe4Zui6G-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list