On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:59:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> Perhaps
>
>soon
>
>The maintainers intend to fix this bug quickly, probably in the
>next upload to Debian unstable.
>
> [ I find myself using a browser tab on my laptop for this, which
>is distin
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 04:21:58PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 14:02 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Don Armstrong writes ("Re: interpretation of wontfix"):
> > > >
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 29 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I often find myself wishing for some tags which relate to how soon we
> intende to deal with a bug. It would be possible to use usertags for
> this but I think something shared would be more useful.
Nice suggestion.
> We could replace `wontfix'
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 14:02 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Don Armstrong writes ("Re: interpretation of wontfix"):
> > > 2) wontfix+help: this bug requires too much effort to fix, so I won't be
> &g
On March 29, 2018 1:16:31 PM UTC, Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 14:02 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Don Armstrong writes ("Re: interpretation of wontfix"):
>> > 2) wontfix+help: this bug requires too much effort to fix, so I
>won't be
>&g
On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 14:02 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Re: interpretation of wontfix"):
> > 2) wontfix+help: this bug requires too much effort to fix, so I won't be
> >working on it, but patches will be accepted.
>
> I dislike the us
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: interpretation of wontfix"):
> 2) wontfix+help: this bug requires too much effort to fix, so I won't be
>working on it, but patches will be accepted.
I dislike the use of "help" in this context. If the maintainers think
the bug is
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: interpretation of wontfix"):
> On Wed, Mar 28 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
...
> I think it would be useful to have your opinions on this, as originators
> (at different points in history) of the current set of BTS tags.
Thanks for asking me, but I don&
Hi Sean,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:08:23PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> > The documentation of wontfix[1] currently allows for both
> > interpretations, and I think both are OK, especially if that helps
> > maintainers filter out bugs that aren't ever going to be fixed.
> >
> > I think that th
Hello Don,
On Wed, Mar 28 2018, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The documentation of wontfix[1] currently allows for both
> interpretations, and I think both are OK, especially if that helps
> maintainers filter out bugs that aren't ever going to be fixed.
>
> I think that the use of wontfix+help can disa
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 12:17:37 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I think "wontfix" is exactly the feature of the BTS that was invented to
> > solve the problem I described. The bug is not closed and remains listed
> > - so everybody is free to ignore tha
nge, even if you provide a
> patch". For instance, if there's a design flaw that people are now
> relying on, such that correcting the design flaw would cause
> regressions that are at least as bad as the design flaw itself, then
> that's an ideal use for my interpretation o
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 02:40:58PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> This is how I see it: keeping the bug around as documentation to prevent
> other people opening it again.
IME there are two (more) aspects when dealing with wontfix bugs: keeping
those bugs open, so they are more visible or closing t
en if you provide a
> patch". For instance, if there's a design flaw that people are now
> relying on, such that correcting the design flaw would cause
> regressions that are at least as bad as the design flaw itself, then
> that's an ideal use for my interpretation of
On Mar 28, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Is this how most people interpret wontfix? I'd usually interpreted it as
> an indication of policy rather than priority: "I acknowledge that this
> is a bug, but it isn't going to change, even if you provide a patch".
This is how I see it: keeping the bug around
* Andreas Tille [180328 07:51]:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:01:19PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 12:17:37 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > I think "wontfix" is exactly the feature of the BTS that was invented to
> > > solve the problem I described. The bug is not clos
ut it isn't going to change, even if you provide a patch".
I see your point.
> For instance, if there's a design flaw that people are now relying on,
> such that correcting the design flaw would cause regressions that are
> at least as bad as the design flaw itself, then
ing on,
such that correcting the design flaw would cause regressions that are
at least as bad as the design flaw itself, then that's an ideal use for
my interpretation of wontfix.
In Bugzilla, WONTFIX and its cousins NOTABUG and NOTOURBUG are
resolutions, not tags (you use them by closing a
18 matches
Mail list logo
