[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#41914: closed (Re: bug#41914: [PATCH] Propagate return value of auto
Tom de Vries
bug#41914: closed (Re: bug#41914: [PATCH] Propagate return value of auto-loaded command)
Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:56:41 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
>> 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.