Re: Dealing with emacs21 (and related) bugs [was: Re: ignoring bugs with no maintainer]
Jean-Christophe Dubacq <jcdubacq1@free.fr> writes:
> Completely at random, I tested this one:
> • #128748 [w| | ] [emacs21] emacs21: M-x word-count (from xemacs) is
> missing?
> It happens that this one is solved in emacs24, not in emacs23.
> What should be done: reassign to emacs23 (which obviously will never fix
> it), or just close it?
I would close it with a note that it's fixed in emacs24.
Assigning it to emacs23 and noting that it's fixed in emacs24 is more
correct, but as you say it's never going to be fixed in emacs23 and we're
going to release jessie with emacs24. Given how large the backlog is, I
would err on the side of closing bugs that no one is likely to ever touch
again otherwise, rather than being precisely correct about the status.
Now, this applies to random, low-profile bugs. I would not advocate doing
the same thing for an important bug in emacs23, where it may be important
to track that emacs23 is currently buggy, may be something stable users
need to know about, etc. But given that this is an ancient bug stranded
on the emacs21 package, I would just take the simplest approach.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: