On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 08:19:06AM -0500, Jesse Luehrs wrote:
Show quoted text
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 10:54:16AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 04:24:31PM -0700, Jesse Luehrs via RT wrote:
> > > I think unlinking the dependents and closing it is fine.
> > But are all the dependents actually resolved?
> > (In that, if we thought that something was worth fixing for 5.10.1, but
> > ultimately didn't, don't we still think that it's worth fixing?)
> Well, yeah, that's why they are still open. If we still think we want
> them to be fixed specifically by 5.18, we can add them to the 5.18 meta
That seems like an excellent plan. Does that ticket exist yet?
(I couldn't find it, but I can find the equivalents for 5.14.0 and 5.16.0)
This is also "interesting" in that it still has open children:
[META] Needs expert assessment for 5.12.0
but possibly after 2 years it deserves the same fate as
[META] Non-critical bugs for Perl 5.12.0
in that those bugs aren't really special, if no-one has fixed them and
no-one else has reported them.