Re: Closing bugs such as 210560
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:00, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:47:09PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:22, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > All of the above seems pretty arbitrary.
> > What do you consider to be the requirements for closing bugs? Should
> > they be fixed? Should they be tested?
> > What do you consider the requirements for a bug to be submitted? That
> > the package has a bug? That the bug can be proven to be related to the
> > Debian packaging and not upstream?
> I've never found attempting to legislate things like this to be a
> worthwhile or effective activity. It's way too subjective.
You state that my complaints are subjective but then refuse to give any
objective criteria yourself.
I suggest that we should have objective criteria that bug reports stay open
until they are fixed, and that the Debian BTS is an acceptable place for
reporting bugs in the upstream software. So far I am the one giving
objective criteria and you are the one making highly subjective assesments.
Do you have anything to add to this discussion?
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page