Re: Closing bugs such as 210560
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:43, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Why would you close a bug report if you were prepared to take it
> > seriously if re-opened?
>
> If you think about that question for a moment then at least one fairly
> obvious answer springs to mind. It's a pretty effective form of
> filtering.
OK, consider all my KDE bug reports to be filtered then. I have no intention
of re-submitting them (in the Debian BTS or elsewhere). The next person who
encounters them can file a bug report, or they can remain as KDE bugs for
another 5 years (at least one of the bugs has been there since 1998).
It's most likely that the next person to report these bugs will have less
background knowledge of KDE than I have and produce less usable bug reports.
But I guess you can always filter them too.
> Besides, you're ignoring the context of the rest of the closing
> message.
The context was that there was a new minor release of KDE which might possibly
fix some of these serious bugs, and that closing them in bulk was considered
to be the best way to deal with them.
> None of what you have said justifies claiming that the closing message
> said, or even implied, that such reports would not be taken seriously.
OK, Chris can demonstrate how serious he is by testing the ones that are
trivial to test (such as 210560) and asking for more information on ones that
are difficult to test.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: