On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 05:30:56PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:00, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:47:09PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:22, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > All of the above seems pretty arbitrary. > > > > > > What do you consider to be the requirements for closing bugs? Should > > > they be fixed? Should they be tested? > > > > > > What do you consider the requirements for a bug to be submitted? That > > > the package has a bug? That the bug can be proven to be related to the > > > Debian packaging and not upstream? > > > > I've never found attempting to legislate things like this to be a > > worthwhile or effective activity. It's way too subjective. > > Pitiful. > > You state that my complaints are subjective Straw man. I did not. Furthermore, you have changed the subject. > I suggest that we should have objective criteria that bug reports stay open > until they are fixed, and that the Debian BTS is an acceptable place for > reporting bugs in the upstream software. So far I am the one giving > objective criteria and you are the one making highly subjective assesments. And how do you get from this to "This closing message doesn't mean what it says, but instead means something else which I consider unacceptable, so I'm going to bitch about it"? You claimed there was no other possible interpretation. I cited several. You gave a list of entirely arbitrary decisions on your part, and announced that since the result of *these decisions* was undesireable, the original action was also undesireable. I can't see how your "objective criteria" fit in here at all. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature