Bug#948180: found 948180 in 4.1.2+dfsg-5, closing 948180

[Salvatore Bonaccorso]

Hi Markus,

On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 02:15:41PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> 
> Am 05.01.20 um 13:39 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> > Hi Markus,
> > 
> > On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 01:26:37PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> >> Am 05.01.20 um 06:44 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> >>> found 948180 4.1.2+dfsg-5
> >>> close 948180 4.2.0+dfsg-1
> >>> thanks
> >>
> >> You could have kept the bug report open until the issue is really fixed
> >> in unstable. I didn't see the new version in experimental until after I
> >> filed the bug report but sometimes such versions will stay there a long
> >> time for various reasons. There are tools like apt-listbugs that will
> >> warn unstable users about RC bugs but only if someone files bug reports.
> > 
> > The BTS (ans various tools) can handle the version tracking (and even
> > close a bug with multiple versions, this is actually what for instance
> > happends if a fix goes in as well via stable and oldstable and
> > contains a respective bug closer as well) -- this is the reason why I
> > first marked 4.1.2+dfsg-5 as found (which contains the bug), and then
> > one can close the bug (BTS will still see that it's unfixed in
> > unstable accordingly).
> > 
> > So either the fix then goes in by cherry-picking fixes for unstable on
> > top of 4.1.2+dfsg-5 or it goes in via a subsequent upload to unstable
> > of the 4.2.0 version.
> > 
> > See as well the respective graph the BTS know: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/version.cgi?absolute=0;fixed=4.2.0%2Bdfsg-1;found=4.1.2%2Bdfsg-5;info=1;package=opencv;collapse=1
> 
> By closing the bug report it disappeared from
> 
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/opencv
> 
> There is no "action required" bullet point and the RC bug count is zero
> now. The bug is also marked as resolved now.
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?repeatmerged=no&src=opencv
> 
> I know the BTS but it was completely sufficient to mark the bug as fixed
> in experimental, you didn't have to close it. People usually don't look
> up the BTS graph to understand if their version is affected and they
> will check the most obvious places first. If bugs are getting closed in
> stable and oldstable, then those have been fixed in nearly all cases in
> unstable as well already.

Right, both approaches have their legitimations. I hear your arguments
and I value your opinion. And I have as well explained my position.
So, if you think there is more benefit in only mark it as fixed then
feel free to reopen it removing the closed status and close the bug
only once the fix entered unstable.

Downside: There is slight chance that then the bug will not be closed,
and will continue to be marked as unresolved, see #924884 for an
example what I mean, which I now just closed retrospectively.

Regards,
Salvatore