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:
pgpQks88W1x9e.pgp
Description: PGP signature