[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#224742: Related to this issue...



On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:12:19PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 04:43:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > No. The wontfix tag is for valid bugs that can't be fixed -- things that
> > are desirable, but conflict with other desirable features. The change
> > you want is not a useful feature at all. Stop wasting your time on this
> > and implement it the way that actually works.
> Again, I think the way it actually works should be changed, and I think
> it's useful for this *technical* considerations of mine to be held in
> the records.

There aren't any technical considerations: "   test-foo yes" has all
the same properties as would "test-foo", with the added benefit that it
works right now. You happen not to like that. Good for you.

> > > As a wishlist bug, this is not a BTS
> > > abuse, AFAIK, at all.  
> > Repeatedly reopening bugs without adding any further information is
> > BTS abuse.
> I have added further information, i.e. more reasons for which I think my
> wish is meaningful, every time I reopened the bug.  

Really?

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224742&msg=30
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=224742&msg=31

> I still think the way you handled this case (and this final happy end)
> should need some review by other people of the community.

Mmm. Do you have any plans to review the way _you_ handled this case?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: pgpugIz0zNQRd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: