On 10/10/2013 21:41, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > 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"
Which is where I think we are on this one. Having looked into it, I viable patch that isn't hugely more complex and expensive than what we have seems very unlikely. > vs. LATER being "we have no plans to do this but would consider a > patch." Those just tend to get left as open enhancement requests. We don't really use the LATER status at all. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
