Bugs difficult to fix (was RE: Signature for QA?)

To: debian-qa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Bugs difficult to fix (was RE: Signature for QA?)
From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:06:37 +0200 (CET)
Message-id: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.990406130237.4716A-100000@cantor.unex.es>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 11CD408013B6D2119BB50008C7EA510C0E06B9@eseis05nok>

On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 arto.astala@nokia.com wrote:

> 1. Package writer is right.
> 2. Even when he is not right, paragraph 1. is applied.

This is great!

May I close the infamous pine base64 bug, then?
I *don't* think it is a bug, upstream authors do *not* think it is a bug
either, but I was *forced* to keep it open.

May I tell the submitter I will close it if he does not provide a patch?

Thanks.

-- 
 "55411630630c65c7bddf026cef48ec1a" (a truly random sig)

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bugs difficult to fix (was RE: Signature for QA?)
  - From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

References:
- RE: Signature for QA?
  - From: arto.astala@nokia.com

Prev by Date: Processed: Reassign bug to fvwm
Next by Date: Re: Bugs difficult to fix (was RE: Signature for QA?)
Previous by thread: RE: Signature for QA?
Next by thread: Re: Bugs difficult to fix (was RE: Signature for QA?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread