Re: Bug#7903: acknowledged by developer (sendmail+deliver+mailx behaviour on delivering local mail)

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <owner@bugs.debian.org> writes:

Ian> Arrigo Triulzi writes ("Re: Bug#7903 acknowledged by developer
Ian> (sendmail+deliver+mailx behaviour on delivering local mail)"):
>> Ahem, surely this is a joke!  Shouldn't bugs be fixed in stable
>> rather than unstable? It has been open a long time, agreed, but I
>> am pretty sure that since hamm is far from ready perhaps this
>> answer is not quite appropriate.

Ian> I agree.  I shall reopen this report.

	Is this going to be policy? Because ever sinve bo was frozen,
 all but the most crtitica fixes have been going to hamm. Many bugs
 have subsequently been closed upstream, and if indeed this is policy
 I think hundreds of reports should now be reopened, to only close
 when hamm is released. And subsequently bug reports pile up again
 until hamm's succesor is released ...

	Though I can see the point that if a bug is opened against a
 stable package it should not be closed until a stable version fix is
 availabele, I also see the converse view that a fix in the latest
 package can also count against bug closures.

	Altrernatively, we can use the new peoposal of a level Fixed
 for this purpose, stating that the bug should be closed on release
 (maybe one should not overload fixed with nmu and unstable-fixes).

	I for one, hate seeing open bug reports against my packages,
 and would find it a major demotivator if there were tens of bug
 reports against my name.

	manoj
-- 
 There are many times when you want it to ignore the rest of the
 string just like atof() does.  Oddly enough, Perl calls atof().  How
 convenient.  :-) --Larry Wall in
 <1991Jun24.231628.14446@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E