Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> writes: > I've seen differing opinions about closing "wontfix" bugs, but as a > user, I appreciate when they are left open. Whether it is a simple > wishlist feature request or a crash when the user abuses the software, > if I go to file the same or similar bug at a later time, if the bug is > closed I will not see it and file a duplicate. If it is left open, I > can see the maintainer has already thought about it and intentionally > decided not to fix it, so I can save the trouble of refiling. Also, I > might gain some insight about the circumstances.
I think it's a trade-off. There are some bugs that seem unlikely to ever come up again or that aren't helpfully worded, and I'm more willing to close those. Also, in the abstract, I don't like using the BTS as a documentation system, which is sort of what collecting wontfix amounts to. If it's something that I think is going to come up a lot, it feels better to put it into the actual documentation (README.Debian, a bug script if it's reported really often, etc.). You're also expecting everyone filing a bug to read through all the existing wontfix bugs (at least their titles), which in some cases is fine but in some cases can become overwhelming. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
