RC buggy package migrated to testing - Debian

This is a discussion on RC buggy package migrated to testing - Debian ; azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to testing? Cheers, Shaun On Nov 24, 2007 4:39 PM, Debian testing watch wrote: > FYI: The status of the azureus source package > in Debian's testing ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: RC buggy package migrated to testing

  1. RC buggy package migrated to testing

    azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to testing?

    Cheers,
    Shaun

    On Nov 24, 2007 4:39 PM, Debian testing watch
    wrote:
    > FYI: The status of the azureus source package
    > in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
    >
    > Previous version: 2.5.0.4-1
    > Current version: 3.0.3.4-2



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:52:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
    > azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to
    > testing?


    Because there's no version information on bug #449176, so britney concludes
    that both the old and new versions of the package are equally buggy.

    --
    Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
    Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
    vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    On Nov 24, 2007 11:05 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
    > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:52:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
    > > azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to
    > > testing?

    >
    > Because there's no version information on bug #449176, so britney concludes
    > that both the old and new versions of the package are equally buggy.


    That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a new RC
    bug has been submitted, it's a rather likely situation that the bug is
    present in unstable and wasn't present before.

    Cheers,
    Shaun


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    On Nov 29, 2007 9:48 AM, Ben Finney wrote:

    > > That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a new RC
    > > bug has been submitted, it's a rather likely situation that the bug is
    > > present in unstable and wasn't present before.

    >
    > I don't see how you get the "and wasn't present before" part of that.
    > Surely this is exactly what version tagging is for?


    Only way would be to map dates to versions.

    --
    bye,
    pabs

    http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    "Shaun Jackman" writes:

    > On Nov 24, 2007 11:05 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
    > > Because there's no version information on bug #449176, so britney
    > > concludes that both the old and new versions of the package are
    > > equally buggy.

    >
    > That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a new RC
    > bug has been submitted, it's a rather likely situation that the bug is
    > present in unstable and wasn't present before.


    I don't see how you get the "and wasn't present before" part of that.
    Surely this is exactly what version tagging is for?

    --
    \ "I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury." -- |
    `\ Groucho Marx |
    _o__) |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:49:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
    > That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a new RC
    > bug has been submitted, it's a rather likely situation that the bug is
    > present in unstable and wasn't present before.


    That's why you use reportbug, so the version information gets right. :-)

    /* Steinar */
    --
    Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  7. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    [Please preserve attribution lines on quoted material, so we can see
    who said what in your message.]

    "Paul Wise" writes:

    > On Nov 29, 2007 9:48 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
    >
    > > > That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a
    > > > new RC bug has been submitted, it's a rather likely situation
    > > > that the bug is present in unstable and wasn't present before.

    > >
    > > I don't see how you get the "and wasn't present before" part of
    > > that. Surely this is exactly what version tagging is for?

    >
    > Only way would be to map dates to versions.


    Not the "only way"; the BTS already has the ability for the user to
    *explicitly state* which version of the package has the bug.

    --
    \ "Our products just aren't engineered for security." —Brian |
    `\ Valentine, senior vice-president of Microsoft Windows |
    _o__) development, 2002 |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  8. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    On Nov 29, 2007 10:11 AM, Ben Finney wrote:

    > > > I don't see how you get the "and wasn't present before" part of
    > > > that. Surely this is exactly what version tagging is for?

    > >
    > > Only way would be to map dates to versions.

    >
    > Not the "only way"; the BTS already has the ability for the user to
    > *explicitly state* which version of the package has the bug.


    You seem to have misinterpreted what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear enough:

    In the absence of version tags, the only way to infer the "and wasn't
    present before" part would be to map timestamps (of bugs and uploads)
    to versions (of bugs and uploads).

    --
    bye,
    pabs

    http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  9. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:49:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
    > On Nov 24, 2007 11:05 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
    > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:52:31PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
    > > > azureus has a RC bug filed against it, #449176. Why did it migrate to
    > > > testing?


    > > Because there's no version information on bug #449176, so britney concludes
    > > that both the old and new versions of the package are equally buggy.


    > That does not seem like a very safe default behaviour. When a new RC
    > bug has been submitted, it's a rather likely situation that the bug is
    > present in unstable and wasn't present before.


    The vast majority of bug submitters use tools that document the version
    number of the package they're reporting the bug against. The current BTS
    semantics with regard to bug versioning have been widely discussed and are
    in place for well over a year. I suggest you update your expectations
    regarding the meaning of a bug report with no version information and no
    suite tags...

    --
    Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
    Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
    Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
    slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  10. Re: RC buggy package migrated to testing

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Paul Wise wrote:
    > In the absence of version tags, the only way to infer the "and
    > wasn't present before" part would be to map timestamps (of bugs and
    > uploads) to versions (of bugs and uploads).


    Though the BTS actually has that information available (and uses it to
    handle archiving) the huristics of figuring out whether a user is
    reporting a bug against a version in testing which has recently been
    uploaded or merely recently been upgraded or the version in unstable
    which has recently been uploaded or merely recently upgraded to the
    version in stable which has recently been uploaded or ugpraded to or
    the version in any of the architectures which has just been installed
    or a version which has no relationship to the versions we distribute
    at all but the user happens to have installed you clearly must be a
    massochist to have read this sentence to this point continue on to the
    next paragraph already.

    So yeah, kind of not possible to do in a reasonable fashion without
    ESP (and if you've got that working, I know of many bugs that could
    use it first.) [I imagine we're probably in violent agreement here.]


    Don Armstrong

    --
    We cast this message into the cosmos. [...] We are trying to survive
    our time so we may live into yours. We hope some day, having solved
    the problems we face, to join a community of Galactic Civilizations.
    This record represents our hope and our determination and our goodwill
    in a vast and awesome universe.
    -- Jimmy Carter on the Voyager Golden Record

    http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread