On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Santiago Vila wrote: > > Well, what I would like to see is a general policy about bugs, covering > > all aspects of bug reporting, forwarding, severitying and closing. Who is > > allowed to do that, and when. For example, how many times are a submitter > > allowed to reopen a bug (I would say that only once), or how do we decide > > about a bug being normal or wishlist (current practice says package > > maintainer has the last word about this). > > No, we just need some common sense, common courtesy (which none of us > seem to be so good at ;), some good relaxation techniques and some > good interpersonal skills.
My experience says this is not enough. > Just being able to throw policy against a bug-submitter doesn't > prevent something from being a bug. And just submitting bugs against > a maintainer doesn't make it one. Certainly. > Maybe there should be something in policy about disputes, but I would > guess that if there is a dispute, it would usually mean that there is > something akin to a bug present. I disagree. This is like saying that somebody reporting *anything* and disputing afterwards is enough to have a "bug". > And if the maintainer doesn't want > to "fix" it, he should at least not close the report, leaving the > reasoning present in the report. IMHO, the BTS should track all Bugs, and should only track feature requests at the option of the package maintainer. A maintainer should not be forced to track a feature request in the BTS if he/she thinks it does not worth the effort or it not of value. Thanks. -- "2207cd996ab2cebd524a15bcc388aad7" (a truly random sig)
