Re: interpretation of wontfix
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 12:17:37 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I think "wontfix" is exactly the feature of the BTS that was invented to
> > solve the problem I described. The bug is not closed and remains listed
> > - so everybody is free to ignore that tag and close the bug.
>
> Is this how most people interpret wontfix? I'd usually interpreted it as
> an indication of policy rather than priority: "I acknowledge that this
> is a bug, but it isn't going to change, even if you provide a patch".
The documentation of wontfix[1] currently allows for both
interpretations, and I think both are OK, especially if that helps
maintainers filter out bugs that aren't ever going to be fixed.
I think that the use of wontfix+help can disambiguate between the two
interpretations.
For example:
1) wontfix: This bug isn't going to be fixed; don't bother helping.
2) wontfix+help: this bug requires too much effort to fix, so I won't be
working on it, but patches will be accepted.
3) help: I want to fix this bug, but I'm blocking on assistance from
someone
But that's not documented at all.
Would a sentence: "Use the help tag in addition to the wontfix tag if
you would still accept a patch that fixed this issue." to the wontfix
description be useful?
1: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags
--
Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com
I've had so much good luck recently I was getting sated with it. It's
like sugar, good luck. At first it's very sweet, but after a while you
start to think: any more of this and I shall be sick.
-- Adam Roberts _Yellow Blue Tibia_ p301
Reply to: