On Oct 10, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > On 10/10/2013 20:40, Jeremy Boynes wrote: >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 7:48 AM, bugzi...@apache.org wrote: >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55249 >>> >>> Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> changed: >>> >>> What |Removed |Added >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> > Status|NEW |RESOLVED >>> Resolution|--- |WONTFIX >> >> Is LATER a better status for this? I was planning to look in to >> this at some point, it's just work has kept me busy the last few >> weeks. > > Obtaining the information required via a route other than compilation > is likely to be more expensive that the compilation step. I doubt any > patch is worth the effort so WONTFIX seems appropriate. It doesn't > prevent a fix at a later date.
This was more for my thinking on Bugzilla status. I think of WONTFIX as being "we will never do this because of technical reason X so a patch is unlikely to be applied" vs. LATER being "we have no plans to do this but would consider a patch." Cheers Jeremy
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
