Re: Downgrading a bug?
* Andreas Metzler (email@example.com) [030605 11:20]:
> Andreas Barth <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Sometimes there are bugs that could be dealt with in two ways. One ist
> > easy (e.g. put a warning in the documentation at the right place), the
> > other one would be much niecer in the long run. I would like that the
> > change-log downgrades the bug automatically on the first patch to
> > severity wishlist (e.g. with a "Wishlist #nnnn" in changelog)
> I think that is kreeping featurism, i.e. a feature which would be
> very rarely used.
> Usually adding a line "foo does not work" to the documentation does in
> _no_ _way_ change severity or status of the bug, the rest of this mal
> assumes that 12334 is a very special bug.
Well, that normally true. But eg in case of bug 191525 or 194540 there
are really two approaches: In 191525 the documentation specifies a
feature that's actually not there - but which would be very nice. So
it's really a documentation bug, but it would be nicer to add this
feature. But - I know that this is in fact rather strange.
Thanks for both answers, the conclusion is that this feature would be
so rarly used that it's better to not implement it and make the
appropriate changes by hand.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C