Re: wontfix and maintainer turnover
"Michael K. Edwards" <mkedebian@sane.net> said:
> See #165101 for an example of Branden's scenario: previous maintainer tagged
> it upstream, wontfix. When I adopted the package (libghttp), I figured I had
> better look over the source code anyway, and fixed the bug. This one happens
> to be priority normal, but it's an example of how it's beneficial to a new
> maintainer if the previous maintainers used wontfix instead of closing
> unresolved bugs.
>
> The wontfix tag is an effective way for the maintainer to communicate a
> judgment about the bug / suggestion without making it hard for a later
> maintainer to reach a different judgment.
I'd like to mention that it is not only good communication between
debian maintainers but also good communication amongs debian users.
However, there are some cases where you have a wontfix for problems
so trivial that you do not want to waste the bug list (too many
entries makes it harder to read) and, if you reported the bug upstream
(I assume that a bug against the maintainer work should never get a
wontfix), I think it is safe to close it, isn't it?
Regards,
--
Mathieu Roy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker: |
| http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: