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