On Monday 29 August 2005 21:59, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:50:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > Also I don't think that "Patched" as a description for tag 'patch' is > > correct. The bug has not been patched, there just is a _proposed_ > > patch available. There is no certainty that the patch is either > > correct or will be accepted by the maintainer. > > If it's known to be incorrect or the maintainer's not going to accept > it, the patch tag isn't appropriate: > > A patch or some other easy procedure for fixing the bug is included > in the bug logs. If there's a patch, but it doesn't resolve the bug > adequately or causes some other problems, this tag should not be > used. Thanks for the clarification. The reality however is that a lot of patches (of varying quality) are submitted to the BTS by others than the maintainer and may linger for quite a while before they are properly reviewed by the maintainer. Having those bugs classified as "patched" IMO gives the wrong impression to casual readers (read non-developers) as it indicates that the problem has already been fixed. I personally read "patched" as synonymous to "patch has been applied", which is just not true. In an perfect world a maintainer would review each patch as it is submitted and remove the tag if the patch is not good. Reality is different, although I hope the recent enhancements to the BTS may help to get it used better.
Description: PGP signature