Re: Closing bugs such as 210560
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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"?
On the contrary, I take the message "If it has not been fixed please do not
reopen the bug in Debian BTS" to mean exactly what it says, the maintainer of
the package does not desire bug reports related to the software at all.
It seems that you are the only person trying to defend this action, even Chris
has not yet done so.
> You claimed there was no other possible interpretation. I cited
> several.
When someone sends me the same message 10 times I believe that they mean
exactly what they say!
> 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.
My belief is that the Debian BTS is the repository for bugs in Debian. It is
not a repository for some arbitary sub-set of bugs. Apart from you and Chris
everyone seems to agree with me.
Therefore the criteria for whether a bug report should be accepted is whether
there is a reproducable bug in the software. Bug #210560 can be trivially
reproduced in 10 seconds. There is no possible doubt that it is a bug
(previous versions of kmail worked correctly in this regard).
If the maintainer has no time to deal with it then they can leave it for the
next KDE maintainer.
Closing a report of an easily reproducable unfixed bug is simply wrong.
Section 3 of the social contract says that we will not hide problems. This
means that when there is a bug we will admit that it is a bug! Saying "oh I
think it's fixed in the next version" is not the approach we take. I don't
demand that all developers do what I do and file bug reports against their
own packages to inform users of known issues. But I do expect that when bug
reports are filed they are kept open until they are fixed.
PS Are you doing a really lame attempt of defending Chris or a subtle attempt
at assasinating his character?
--
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: