Package: backup2l
Version: 1.5-2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi Joachim,
this bug is a replacement for #351812 that was unfortunately already
archived when I upgraded backup2l.
First of all, your 1.5-1 upload violated regarding #351812 in at least
three different ways the recommended procedures outlined in the
Debian Developer's Reference:
1. Closing bugs without any description what was fixed.
* New upstream release. (Closes: #519610, #537593, #337485, #290567, #493319)
(Closes: #291423, #305792, #497711, #351812, #303462, #303620, #307759)
Wrong according to section 6.3.3.
2. Closing #351812 although you didn't fixed it but marked it as
"wontfix".
Wrong according to sections 5.8.4., 6.3.2. and 6.3.3.
3. Cloing the bug at all.
You can tag it as "wontfix", but I do object that you close it at all.
See section 5.8.3.
It would have been nice if you had Cc'ed me on your message stating that
you do not consider it a bug, instead of handling the bug in a way that
made me believe my patch was applied (see 1. and 2. above).
Now going back to the bug, why will I always object to this bug being closed?
Runnning a backup shouldn't modify the system.
mutt let's me cycle through all folders containing new email.
Without my patch, after running a backup I might miss new email in
folders, especially in folders with infrequent new email.
You might call it "a matter of taste", but for me that is a clear bug
with bad real-life consequences.
Your "It should be consistent with all built-in drivers, however." might
be a point, but for changing it consitently, not for closing my bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
