[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#302762: acknowledged by developer (cooledit removed)

On Mon, 2 May 2005 13:46:52 +0200
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> wrote:

> > Suggested fix:  create a new bug status between "Open" and "Closed" --
> > call it "Limbo" maybe.  "Limbo" bugs would be any bug that was "Open"
> > when orphaned, or any bug reported after a package was orphaned.
> > Programs that tabulate bug statistics could consider "Limbo" bugs as
> > "Closed" for most purposes.  Upstream maintainers and users would
> > still see them as virtually "Open" for most purposes.  When any
> > orphaned package was re-adopted, the "Limbo" bugs could be changed
> > back to "Open".
> Orphaned package's bugs are not closed, only when the package is really
> purged from the archive, this happens. The amount of those bugs simply
> does in no way warrant an extra state.

I dunno...

First off, I infer by your usage of the verb "warrant" that you feel adding an extra state would be difficult.  Yet it wouldn't be unless the BTS source code was so inflexible that can't be easily extended.  It's like saying the BTS code is ossified, like a bone that when broken doesn't get set right.   Is that correct?

As for the amount of bugs -- I have doubts, because I've seen packages where about ten different maintainers chastise users about not reporting bugs to orphaned packages.  That's a waste of those guys time, and what's a BTS for if not to SAVE them time?  And it's obvious they don't like doing it, their repeated closings tend to be snippy, as though they were tired.

> Debian isn't a collection place for *all* bugs in the GNU/Linux world.

True, but nobody said it was.  Apologies if anything I  wrote gave the wrong impression regarding that.

> As the social contract says, we'll do our best to inform upstream
> authors etc, and we specificly won't ever delete a bug report, but once
> a bug is closed, it's no longer relevant for Debian, and it'd be much
> overkill to spend a lot of time on things that most likely are never
> looked up again. 

Why would such a change as adding an "Orphan" state between "Open" and "Closed"
require that any maintainers "spend a lot of time"?  Rather it should save them a lot of time.  The status could be assigned automatically, they'd never have to lift a finger.  Unlike now.


Reply to: