On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:45:35PM +0100, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: [...] > If the problem is that no explanation is sent with the close command, I > think that this is only a matter of kindness of the DD manipulating the > bugs; I prefer to teach people to behave in the better way for the > community, rather than deny the whole community to do something. On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:55:50PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Someone (deleted the email; sorry) said that they didn't want to take > away the opportunity to use the "close" command, and that education > was better. This was not exactly what i wrote and intended. If the problem is that some DD close their bug and do not provide a reason when, instead, they should, i prefer to reopen the bug asking for a proper reason (as proposed in some mail). I'm used to think positively, so i always suppose that there were a good reasons. A simple notification is more than enough to me the most of the cases. > I claim that there is *no* situation in which using the close command > is better that mailing nnnnn-done (although there may be situations in > which they are equally good). And usually, using the close command is > actually worse than mailing nnnnn-done. Depends on the point of view, and the situations: i reported two situation in which the close command is quicker for the DD closing the bug, and a reason is provided in some other way (supposing the submitter of the report is interested). cheers, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$
Attachment:
pgpFbnkdLZBQc.pgp
Description: PGP signature