John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 07:26:21PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> > I'm askinf if it is ok to to reopen such bugs based of better QA
>> > aspects. Possibly by providing patches if the maintainer is busy
>> > elsewhere to handle such a "minor issue" from his perspective.
>> No, it's not. Even if a patch is provided, handling a bug is a time
>> consuming activity (*horribly* time consuming if the patch is for
>> upstream code).
>> If you really think this crusade is worth being pursued then I suggest
>> you just mail patches to Debian maintainers for original scripts and to
>> the upstream maintainers for the rest.
>
> I agree. And I would add that this is not a bug (not a defect, etc) at
> all. It is perfectly valid syntax.
The issue was not whether the syntax is valid or not. Given that there
are alternatives, there might be reasons what would be in favor of one
of the two.
Le't call this "wishlist" if we need to be pedantic. I would still
call this a bug from a QA perspective. Quality is more than "valid
syntax".
> If you're going to open up bugs on this, then you might as well file
> a bug against the kernel for not indenting like GNU does, against
> libc for not indenting like Linus does, and against gnome for not
> indenting like either of them do.
I don't see choice in the indentation character "{", so it's not
comparable. Besides Kernel has a written Coding Style that they
follow, so the "quality aspects" haave been recorded, so this is not
comparable either.
Jari
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
