Re: Closing bugs such as 210560
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:06, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> >> For the same reason we should provide information about upstream changes
> >> that close our bugs in the changelog, as previously discussed ad nauseum
> >> on this list.
> >
> > No this doesn't follow at all.
>
> For the same reason we should provide information about upstream changes
> that close our bugs in the changelog, if we use the changelog to
> closed them on the BTS, as previously discussed ad nauseum
> on this list.
Guys, let's not get off the topic here.
When someone fixes a bug and does not adequately explain it then I have no
complaint AS LONG AS IT IS FIXED!
When someone closes a bug because they can't be bothered testing it or
forwarding it upstream it is a totally different situations.
A maintainer who lacks time or ability to properly manage their bugs should
leave them open so that someone who has the right combination of time and
ability can do it in the future.
--
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: