On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:22:16AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:05, Graham Wilson wrote: > > If the bug *can be* reproduced, it should definitely not be closed. I > > agree with you on this point. > > > > However, if the maintainer *cannot* reproduce it, and nobody has > > provided any useful information on how to do so, I feel the bug can be > > closed after a given amount of time. This is what I originally said. > > Everyone agrees that the maintainer can close unreproducable bugs for which > the bug reporter provides no further input. > > However that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is of a > maintainer closing bugs which could be tested so trivially that it would be > easier to test for the existence of the bug than to close the bug report. You keep going on the assumption that the maintainer of a piece of software uses said software. In the case of KDE where they bundle nearly 20 separate apps in kdenetwork alone this is certainly not the case. I have never used kmail. That said what I did was wrong and I understand and accept that. However, saying it is easier to test for the bugs existence than to close it is simply not true. Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature