Fwd: closing out old bugs of unmaintained releases
Andrew Farris
lordmorgul at gmail.com
Tue Jan 8 21:59:32 UTC 2008
John Poelstra wrote:
>> I would say that the recent change to rawhide tag rather than devel
>> should have been more thorough and included a rawhide version (pre-F9)
>> for instance. Getting rid of the 3 different -testX versions was good,
>> but rawhide changes and bugs filed against it get left behind.
>>
>
> It was discussed on fedora-test-list at the time of the change of the
> bugzilla versions.
>
> Most seemed to be in agreement that going forward, at the GA of each new
> release, the version of all existing rawhide bugs would be mass changed
> to the GA version. For example, for the upcoming release, open rawhide
> bugs at the time of GA we would changed to Fedora 9. This would have a
> few benefits as we go forward for each release:
> 1) encourage the closing of rawhide bugs that qualify
> 2) anchor the remaining rawhide bugs to the closest GA release so
> there is a marker in the future as to when they were reported.
>
> John
>
I guess I missed that discussion but that would indeed fix the problem of
carrying Rawhide bugs along into next release.
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> <ajfarris at gmail.com>
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list