On 08/06/08 at 12:22 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 10:26:51AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 06/06/08 at 17:28 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > > > I therefore suggest adding a sentence to the second paragraph of > > > bullet (2) in chapter 5.8.3 so that it will say: > > > > > > If the bug submitter disagrees with your decision to close > > > the bug, they may reopen it until you find an agreement on > > > how to handle it. If you don't find any, you may want to tag > > > the bug wontfix to let people know that the bug exists but > > > that it won't be corrected. Please make sure that the bug > > > submitter understands the reasons for your decision by > > > adding an explanation to the message that adds the wontfix tag. > > > > We have to be careful if we add something like that. Currently, I think > > that it's generally considered that the maintainer has authority on his > > packages' bugs, and can handle them the way he wants. > > Your paragraph: > > - explicitely gives submitters the right to reopen a bug if they > > disagree with the maintainer's decision to close a bug. > > - gives submitter the opportunity to require that a bug with > > disagreement is left open, tagged wontfix. > > Yes, that's what the developer's reference says today. I have only > added the requirement to explain why a bug was tagged wontfix.
Ah, that's bullet (1), not (2), then. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
