Re: Resolving the controversy
Ben Finney <email@example.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Ben Finney <email@example.com> writes:
>>> Indeed, and I've no wish to impede anyone in efforts to fix bugs.
>>> I'm arguing for interpretation of the social contract such that
>>> DFSG violations are bugs by definition, so they can be fixed as
>> The DFSG doesn't define bugs. It defines release-critical bugs. Bugs
>> that are not release-critical are still occasionally fixed. :)
> Yes, I agree. I don't know what else you expect; have I given reason
> to make you think I'd disagree with that statement?
Because you've repeatedly said in this thread that one of your motives in
discussing this is to ensure that the DFSG declares this a bug so that it
will be fixed. This was also the reason for the earlier response that you
blew up at. I'm trying to explain what the other poster was getting at,
since you apparently completely missed it.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>