Re: Bug#3253: Pine base64 bug
Brian White <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > 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.
> Non-MIME mailers don't add "attachments".
So? How does that make uselessly over-encoding a plain text file
> > Only the people who want to close this bug consider it a feature
> > request.
> No, only those who don't want to fight against the upstream authors
> directly fight to let the maintainer to their dirty work for them.
What are you on about? Are we asking Santiago to "fight the upstream
authors" and "do our dirty work for us"? Uhh, no. We're saying the
bug should be kept open till it is dealt with. Nobody insisted
Santiago should continue hassling the upstream authors, indeed nobody
is even hassling Santiago to fix it. The only thing I'm hassling
Santiago to do is to not close the bug report and stop anyone else
from trying to fix it.
> > > 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.
> If it were a bug, I'd agree with you. Since it's not (it behaves
> exactly as documented), we don't _have_ to track it.
I can't believe you are seriously trying to claim that anything
documented is not a bug, I refer you once again to the hypothetical
example of a documented alias ls='rm -fr', is that not a bug?
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .