hidden comments in Bugzilla and no fix for testing and no timing for the fix?
Amongst others I have reported bug 148210. It got marked as fixed (no fix provided, so I cannot verify the fix). I find not only this strange but also there are comments missing like #46, #48 and #49. Moreover there is no entry in which milestone it got fixed. Does someone now if this common policy for an "Open"SUSE product, so reporters and contributors get no idea how the bug got fixed (or if it got really fixed at all)? FMF
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Frank-Michael Fischer wrote:
Amongst others I have reported bug 148210. It got marked as fixed (no fix provided, so I cannot verify the fix). I find not only this strange but also there are comments missing like #46, #48 and #49. Moreover there is no entry in which milestone it got fixed.
Check back with the next release (presumably RC1). On the private comments: They are used for internal communication, which is sometimes needed for coordination. They are not intended for the public.
Does someone now if this common policy for an "Open"SUSE product, so reporters and contributors get no idea how the bug got fixed (or if it got really fixed at all)?
As the sources / rpms are synced out daily, it shouldn't be to difficult for you to just have a look those + the rpm changelog. Regards Christoph
Hello, Christoph Thiel írta:
As the sources / rpms are synced out daily, it shouldn't be to difficult for you to just have a look those + the rpm changelog.
Not since lost Thursday, as far as I can see. I just checked stage, but still nothing is uploaded there. Factory is frozen :-( Bye, CzP
Peter Czanik <pczanik@fang.fa.gau.hu> writes:
Hello,
Christoph Thiel írta:
As the sources / rpms are synced out daily, it shouldn't be to difficult for you to just have a look those + the rpm changelog.
Not since lost Thursday, as far as I can see. I just checked stage, but still nothing is uploaded there. Factory is frozen :-( Bye,
Unfrozen since 12 hours, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Frank-Michael Fischer wrote:
Amongst others I have reported bug 148210. It got marked as fixed (no fix provided, so I cannot verify the fix). I find not only this strange but also there are comments missing like #46, #48 and #49. Moreover there is no entry in which milestone it got fixed.
Check back with the next release (presumably RC1). On the private comments: They are used for internal communication, which is sometimes needed for coordination. They are not intended for the public.
Does someone now if this common policy for an "Open"SUSE product, so reporters and contributors get no idea how the bug got fixed (or if it got really fixed at all)?
As the sources / rpms are synced out daily, it shouldn't be to difficult for you to just have a look those + the rpm changelog.
Regards Christoph
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org
I am sorry, but this is not correct. In case of bug 148210 there is no fix submitted: "... Bugs are marked FIXED once the fix is submitted. You can later mark the bug as VERIFIED or reopen it. This is the only way to keep track of the work to do." and "... Currently wpa_supplicant seems to have issues wrt Prism chips. We're working on a solution. NM depends on wpa_supplicant to make things work. As we're aware of the problem, please relax watch us doing the work and enjoy the results. If we can not make wpa_supplicant play fine with Prism you still have the freedom of choice: Use ifup and things work out of the box or use ndiswrapper with some work of post-install configuration. ..." So is this case the fix is: "watch us doing the work and enjoy the results". The real message is: we are in the middle of fixing it, therefore it's fixed and you may reopen it in case verification fails. I have no problem with this procedure as long as there is a clear statement that "FIXED" does not necessarily mean "fixed" but "we are working on it" and "we hide comments so you will not know how we are working on it." Plus may be even: "FIXED" does not mean "you will find a fix in the factory tree". FMF
participants (4)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Christoph Thiel -
Frank-Michael Fischer -
Peter Czanik