so, we've got FC2 now...

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:53:08PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
 > On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:52:20PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > I'm 99.99999999999999% sure theres no security implications of any of them.
 > > If you spot any that are I'd like to know about it, because as I mentioned
 > > lots of these are FC3 bugs too.
 > 
 > Dave, how do you feel specifically about the FC2 kernel bugs? Should they
 > all be moved to FC3 (since it's basically the same kernel)? Or should I do
 > the bulk NEEDINFO of all of them, with the Fedora Legacy message I posted
 > earlier?
 > 
 > This is about 40% of *all* open FC2 bugs, so it might be the right place to
 > start.

I've no objection to moving them to FC3 bugs, but a lot of them are
just 'stuck', and when we end of life FC3, we'll be having this
conversation again.

I'd recommend closing them with a 'reopen if it affects FC3 and
no bug against that product exists' comment.  The problem with
NEEDINFO'ing them is that this doesn't solve the 'stuck' bugs.

You might also want to add a note explaining why it won't
be fixed in FC2.

		Dave