In <[🔎] 20090612151831.GK32119@torres.zugschlus.de>, Marc Haber wrote: >On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:31:14AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> In <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>, Johannes Zarl wrote: >> >2) Kmail: >> >KMail doesn't allow "View Source" on some messages, but not all. Some >> >investigation leads me to believe this may be this bug: >> >https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=190938 >> > >> >Should I refile this bug in the debian-bts? >> >> I wouldn't consider it of RC-severity, so I think filing it on the >> Debian BTS is a bit of a waste. > >Excuse me, since when is the Debian BTS limited to bugs of RC >severity? It would be a shame to have the other severity values >considered deprecated and wasted. I'm not saying that. However, filing non-RC bug at the Debian BTS is not very productive in this case. The bug exists upstream, so any Debian bug would simply be tagged upstream, and forwarded to the URL the OP mentioned. The Debian bug would serve only as a placeholder/notification. With RC bugs, this is useful since it prevents automatic migration from unstable to testing and is tracked closely for the release of testing as stable. In addition tools like rc-alert and apt-listbugs only show RC level bugs (by default). With non-RC bugs, is it not so useful. If the reporter doesn't do the tagging and forwarding, it "wastes" the Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers time. If the report does do the tagging and forwarding, well, at least then it doesn't do any damage. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.