On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 02:03:34PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:29:35PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > Thank you everyone for the feedback.
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:41:10PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > afaiu block-proposed tags on bugs are not specific to any series, so you are
> > > blocking updates across all series. Not really desired.
> > Following the thread you started, it seems that we can all agree to use
> > block-proposed-<series> instead. Does this resolve your concern?
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 09:24:10PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > Does this work sensibly, though? AFAIUI, the tools will set the bug
> > > back to verification once you upload a follow up (at least if you
> > > pass -v<version in -updates> to dpkg-buildpackage, which IIRC is
> > > kind of expected, as otherwise bug closure emails end up weird).
> Is this expectation, using -v<version in -updates>, something that
> should be documented? I ask as when I was doing my SRU shift yesterday I
> encountered an upload of a package which was following an upload in
> -proposed with the block-proposed-<series> tag but -v was not used. I
> went ahead and redid the upload and used -v but wonder if that should be
> the policy.
I agree this should be the policy and should be documented. As you and I
discussed elsewhere, the impact of not using -v is that bugs that were fixed
in previous uploads do not get auto-closed correctly by Launchpad if they
are not listed in the correct field in the .changes file, causing confusion
and delay.
--
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 https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
