Follow-up Comment #12, bug #60927 (group groff): Hi Keith,
At 2025-08-24T17:32:34-0400, Keith Marshall wrote: >> https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?111303 > Okay, but unfortunately, that's not immediately helpful. Not immediately, no, but in the past the Savannah admins/Savane developers have been responsive to my wishlist requests. So I'll cross my fingers. >> I've annotated several _groff_ ticket summaries with '[not our >> problem]' over the years, but one [can] infer harshness from that, >> too.[1] > Perhaps. To me, "invalid" implies that the original submission is > defective. It doesn't to me, but then I may be more literal-minded (bloody-minded?) than some users of the tracker. > When I was managing the MinGW trackers, we had additional > classification choices for "outdated", (meaning that it had ceased to > be our problem), "self-service", (meaning that we thought the issue > was the user's to resolve), and "non-mingw", (meaning that we > thought that the issue should be referred elsewhere). Perhaps you > could consider adding similar additional field values for _groff_'s > tracker? (Even adding just "inapplicable" would offer a potentially > less apparently harsh option). Not being William James, I would prefer not to finely categorize the varieties of invalid experience. I think making the field value definitions publicly visible would kill this bird and several others. Thus I could be swayed if #111303 above sees no action. I filed it just the other day, so I ask for a little patience. Regards, Branden _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60927> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
