Re: Bug#3253: Pine base64 bug
Santiago Vila Doncel <email@example.com> writes:
[ I notice you've moved this on to debian.noise^H^H^H^H^Hdevel, I have
no idea why, but if you insist on doing so, please keep 3253 in the
Cc: line in some form or other ]
> > Excuse me? Are you seriously trying to claim that using a mailer
> > which isn't MIME-aware is broken?
> No, I'm saying that pine is no more broken than non-MIME mailers.
Que? Non-MIME mailers don't uselessly over-encode plain text files.
> > > Not every (bug|feature request) have to be on the bug tracking
> > > system.
> > Uhh, why not? Surely that is what it's there for?
> We are currently using it for feature requests, so we are really
> making a bad use of it. But since we don't have a "wish tracking
> system" yet, this procedure is better than nothing.
Only the people who want to close this bug consider it a feature
> > Why not just leave it on the bug tracking system where it belongs?
> > Or can I close all my unresolved bugs, and dump them in a file
> > under /usr/doc/$package/?
> If you have already forwarded them a lot of times, and upstream
> authors tell you a lot of times they consider it a feature and not a
> bug, and the "fix" is not trivial, and the package is not free, and
> you think yourself that it is not a bug, yes, I would say it is
> right to choose the way you want it to be documented (either the bug
> system or a file like BUGS.Debian).
And I would say that is totally wrong. We have a bug tracking system,
so use it. Documenting a bug in BUGS.Debian and closing the bug is
just a(n underhanded) way of reducing the number of bugs against your
package(s). One is meant to close a bug when it's been dealt with,
*not* when you've documented it elsewhere.
Yes, this sometimes means that there will be long standing bugs open,
which won't be fixed any time RSN, but tough. This is not a bad
thing, witness for example the recent proposition to fix #988. Would
anyone even remember that if it wasn't on the bug tracking system?
> > > We have have more important things to do than adding features to
> > > non-free packages.
> > So prioritize then, don't close bugs you consider "unworthy" in
> > some way.
> Exactly, until we have a better bug tracking system, I don't want
> those stupid feature-requests-already-forwarded-a-lot-of-times to be
> on my to-do list.
So take them of your todo list, but don't remove them from the bug
tracking system, that's wrong (don't confuse *your* todo list and
*Debian's* bug tracking system). You haven't dealt with the bug
therefore it shouldn't be removed.
> > This is evil. It is very bad, IMO, to start prioritizing bugs and
> > closing ones you feel are less worthy than others. There is
> > nothing wrong with 3253 staying in the bug tracking system, in
> > fact this is where it should stay until it is dealt with, and
> > documenting it *does not* count as dealing with it.
> I see it much more like a feature-request than a bug.
Yes, both the people who want to close the bug like to call it that.
Perhaps because it makes it much easier for them to justify wanting to
> This "bug" has reached its "final" state: the bug is dead. So there
> is nothing more to "track".
How do you know that someone won't fix this at some time in the
future? You _don't_ (again #988). So leave the bug open.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .