Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:40:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: freebsd-bugs Subject: Re: misc/4028 : GNATS auto-magically re-opened14prs Message-ID: <199707152040.NAA23027@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR misc/4028; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> Cc: hoek@hwcn.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: misc/4028 : GNATS auto-magically re-opened14prs Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 16:40:08 -0400 (EDT) On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Bill Fenner wrote: > Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> wrote: > >Specifically, bugs which were closed became silently open. > > Are you sure they were closed? Or did they just not appear in the > bug summary because they were marked as confidential? Ok, if they were marked confidential, then this is one of the things that would have had to have happened. 1) Bug report gets sent using send-pr. Confidential is set to "no". 2) Bug report arrives and gets stuck in queue that resulted from hub-freefall split. 3) gnats handles pr. Two things happen. a) pr gets duplicated b) Confidential on one of the duplicates gets set to "yes" and stays "no" on the other duplicate. I'm using gnu/3433 as an example here. For some of the others, gnats would have had to change Confidential to "yes" on both duplicates. Still others may have slight variations, but this is what would have _had_ to have happened. Further, Mike Pritchard (gnats-meister at the time) was aware that pr's got duplicated. I would imagine he was looking for related possible problems and would have seen such a strange anamoly. I'm not sure if this is more or less plausible than suggesting that gnats arbitrarily removed their audit-trail. Third suggestions are welcome, but ultimately, I'm not sure how much it matters how it happened. My original hope had been that they could be (fairly) easily pieced back together again, but without some other suggestion, I'm not sure that's possible, meaning it may be easier just to let the things sit and wait to be looked at again individually. > >The list of prs affected I constructed by comparing a known good > >pr-list posted to freebsd-bugs with the current list on > >www.freebsd.org. > > Was there a previous pr-list with the bugs open? No. There is about a 5 day gap during which they had to be closed in order not to get listed on the pr-list posted May 5 (unless the arrival-date shown on the prs is way off). -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707152040.NAA23027>