On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 09:59:08PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Are you being deliberately obtuse? It limits the effectiveness of the
> package's BTS page as a tool for the maintainer, by requiring it to
> include irrelevant (from the maintainer's POV) bugs that do not
> represent outstanding issues (again from the maintainer's POV). This
> constitutes an ultimatum to the maintainer: acquiesce to the submitter's
> request, or put up with this degradation of the BTS's utility to you.
I think it would be helpful if there were some more guidance given to
developers as to when it's appropriate to close a bug without resolving
it (and when it isn't actually resolved), and when it's appropriate to
simply tag it won't fix. Consider the definition of the "wontfix" tag.
wontfix
This bug won't be fixed. Possibly because this is a choice between
two arbitrary ways of doing things and the maintainer and submitter
prefer different ways of doing things, possibly because changing the
behaviour will cause other, worse, problems for others, or possibly
for other reasons.
The *only* thing this communicates unambiguously is "this bug won't be
fixed". The rest is very vague, and suggestive of nothing but absolute
maintainer discretion for applying the tag.
Given this, why *wasn't* tagging the bug wontfix the correct course of
action? Please explain this using the existing BTS documentation,
keeping in mind that most of the users of our BTS do not have the time
to research the archives of the debian-devel list for explanations of
the disposition of issues reported in our bug tracking system. They
will likely expect that the on-line documentation is sufficient.
--
G. Branden Robinson | I am only good at complaining.
Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code.
branden@debian.org | -- Dan Jacobson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature