Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:32:21 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, bugbusters@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bugzilla? (was Re: Okay, I think I need some serious introduction;-) Message-ID: <3E49C045.E519DD90@mindspring.com> References: <20030209185618.GA19962@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <20030209151407.N548@localhost> <2e1y2e7jtu.y2e@localhost.localdomain> <3E498592.5E5BF4EE@mindspring.com> <20030211211426.A43952@hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ ... redirected to 'bugbusters' ... ] "Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > The problem with this approach is that it's possible to ignore > > a PR to make it go away, without the underlying problem being > > repaired/acknowledged. > > And that is different then now, leaving it open? The information is not destroyed that the bug was never in fact actually resolved. If you want to have a "I can't fit it" or "I won't fix it" status for the bug, fine, but do not claim it is resolved when it can not be proven, via a regression test, that it is, in fact, resolved. > How many PRs right now contain patches that ppl have 'ignored' All open ones with patches attached, of course. > and, as a result, are no longer even relevant to the code? You probably really mean "the code is no longer relevent to the patch", since the patch has not changed in the interim; from the patch's point of view, that translates to one of: o that the code was changed by someone who did not properly maintain the patch o that the code was changed by someone who did not properly check for a patch o that the current process failed to "lock" the section of code that the patch applied to, because the current process has a bug -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugbusters" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E49C045.E519DD90>