Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:36:13 -0400 as excerpted: > As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs > are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug > and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is > under no more pressure than usual to do the bump.
This looks like a reasonable compromise indeed. =:^) Tho I'd still suggest that like other "low priority" bugs, the package maintainer can still resolve it as LATER, BLUESKY (tho AFAIK gentoo's bugzilla doesn't have that one), or even WONTFIX (as opposed to INVALID). The bug should be considered valid, so INVALID isn't correct, but disallowing WONTFIX simply gets in the way of proper communication. If a package maintainer WONTFIX, it's better to let them actually SAY that, so the bug filer can get on with life, knowing they'll have to longterm maintain their own overlay copy if they want the EAPI bump bad enough, than to have the bug simply sit there, ignored. Talking about which. what about a resolution PATCHESACCEPTED? IOW, I don't care enough to bother with it myself, but if you provide the patch, I'll take it. Tho I guess WORKSFORME sort of fits, if the definition is bent far enough. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
