On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Stefan Behlert <behlert@suse.de> wrote:
Or... just file a new bnc with the non-sensitive description, a link to the private bnc, and add that to the changelog.
You are aware that we are talking about thousands of bugreports in the worst case?
No, I do not have SUSE stats.
This would mena that someone has to do this e.g. for all referenced security bugs, all SLES/SLED bugs and much more.
Supposedly, the work for extracting a minimal description of the bug into a public source would be small compared to actually fixing the bug.
Just to make this clear: Yes, we try to file as many bugs against openSUSE as possible, but there are still a lot left.
I wonder what is planned to achieve with that checking? You are not gaining any more information, as I doubt that a lot of people would really duplicate a (closed) security bug and strip of all related information (which btw makes the duplication worthless).
You are just taking information for some people away.
It is really really wrong to reference a bnc by number on a changelog when that bnc is private. It adds obscurity into the community and that's bad. I agree that automatically checking and giving no exception mechanism puts SUSE employees in a position where they will probably choose to not a) push the change into openSuse, or b) reference the bug at all, and that's also bad. But lets not forget that adding obscure changelogs *is* *quite* *bad* in open source. So, what do you propose? What *can* SUSE employees do to improve that situation? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org