bug#41914: closed (Re: bug#41914: [PATCH] Propagate return value of auto-loaded command)
Jacob Bachmeyer <[email protected]> Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:07:02 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.sysutils.dejagnu.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tom de Vries wrote: > On 6/18/20 11:50 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > >> Tom de Vries wrote: >> >>> On 6/18/20 1:20 AM, GNU bug Tracking System wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Your bug report >>>> >>>> #41914: [PATCH] Propagate return value of auto-loaded command >>>> >>>> which was filed against the dejagnu package, has been closed. >>>> >>>> The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. >>>> If you require more details, please reply to [email protected]. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> AFAICT, no fix was committed to master. So, I'm not sure I understand >>> why this bug was closed. >>> >> It was closed because a fix had been rolled into the fix for #41824. >> Linus' Law applied here: we both found the same bug and actually fixed >> it the same way. I merged the comment and ChangeLog entry from your >> patch into the temporary "PR41824" branch. >> >> Is there a better way to record this circumstance in debbugs than >> closing the second bug? >> > > Well, in my understanding, yes, by: > - mentioning the circumstance without closing the bug, and > - closing the bug once the fix is present on master. > > It's just that in all projects I worked in, this practice is adhered to, > with the specific purpose of being able to track problems to completion. > > Of course, if the dejagnu project doesn't adhere to this, I have no > issues with that. I just asked the question because I was surprised. > Fair enough; I am new to package maintenance and probably closed the bug earlier than needed. The fix is definitely going into 1.6.3, but I was not aware of a convention of holding bugs open until the patches have landed on master. I will try to do better in the future. -- Jacob _______________________________________________ Bug-dejagnu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-dejagnu