Josip Rodin dijo: > That's primarily because it's worked like this for years, and because people > shouldn't ever need this as the bugs shouldn't get wrongly closed and then > neglected for a month. Theoretically, bugs shouldn't reappear in newer > releases of software, too :)
IMNSHO, the bug is fixed and dealt with. :-) It just happened again in another arch. Wich is driving me nuts. > Besides, then we'd have to adjust the age of the bug, and then we'd have a > discrepancy between the dates on the logged e-mails and that time counter. > > Not to mention the mess this would cause with merged bugs, which are already > badly handled in some cases (reopening causes all submitters to merge, or > something like that; it's been filed). Ok, now I see the reason for it and I see it's a reasonable implementation. (Now I am overwhelmed by the use of reason twice in the same sentence) :-) Thank you. > And because it requires work to implement it, of course ;) And probably not worth it. I can always file it again as other people have suggested. If upstream manages to find a long term solution I will not file it again. -- .''`. Email debates are a vast conspiracy to waste time. In short: get a life : :' : - Nat Torkington - `. `' Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (Kernel 2.4.9) `- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
