[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The pine base64 bug - policy

> The maintainer agreed with me (in the bug logs) that it _was_ a bug,
> and has apparently retracted this now.  My definition of a bug would
> be something that is not as it *should* be, where should is according
> to technical merit, our policies, &c.  If we are to have an argument
> about what the behaviour of pine ought to be then we ought to do so,
> CC'ing the relevant bug report, until we have reached consensus about
> what ought to be done or it can't be resolved.

While a noble goal, it is not a feasable one.  Since what your idea of
"should" can differ greatly from another person's idea of "should",
there is no way to implement such that we won't have wars over "I don't
like it / I do like it".

The best place to draw the line is where it is the cleanest, and that is
at something that can be determined by a set of guidelines.  The cleanest
place I can see this line for this instances is:

	Does not behave as documented.

I'm open to better ones, but it must be objective, not subjective.

                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

If you have a 50% chance of guessing right, you'll guess wrong 75% of the time.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: