Christopher Sawtell wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: > >> Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a): >> [snip] >> >> See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a >> bug, then it's not a bug. >> > In which case it must be a feature, so why not use the keyword FEATURE? > > Why would we need a keyword for that? We already have "enhancement" as a possible value of the severity field. > imnsho it's very important not to cause deliberate offense, because doing so > perpetuates the idea that FOSS movement people are an unpleasant bunch of > individuals. This causes users to make the choice of using computer products > from elsewhere, and developers to spend their free time doing other things. > FOSS _is_ a bunch of individuals, each with their own agenda. Whether they're unpleasant or not, it is a subjective issue.
One of the FOSS strengths is always telling the truth, which applied to invalid bugs translates as closing them with INVALID resolution. If the reporter takes it as a personal offense, it is by all means his problem, not ours. Someone once said (Linus maybe?) "Linux is user-friendly, only chooses its friends more carefully".
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
