On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:29:17AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Well it links in my GUII tree (don't ask me why !) and the bug is
> | obviously still there :)
>
> What system are you on?
Linux gcc 2.96 too.
> How different are your three from the one in CVS?
Rather different. Which probably explains it. Still odd though.
> | Because you are complaining about stale bugs.
>
> hint: reLyX...
Well, this is thorny problem. Users are still going to hit these
bugs often, but we have no plans to fix them. So perhaps the relyx bugs
can all be mass-WONTFIXed. I would be happy with that since it
accurately reflects the (unfortunate) situation.
> additional requested information not given...
yep
> | c) are not intended to be fixed ever
>
> or are likely to be fixed by larger arcitectural changes.
See what I said about why that's dangerous.
> | Put it another way: what is worse, a useless bug report, or an unfixed
> | bug that has been forgotten ?
>
> if the bug was important it will be reported again.
What about unimportant bugs ? Don't you care about quality control ?
Don't you care about polish ? Don't you care about usability,
completeness and consistency ? Don't you care about translations ?
There is practically /zero/ point in a bug tracker if it's only there
for important bugs (who forgets the important bugs ?)
john
--
"Please let's not resume the argument with the usual whining about how this
feature will wipe out humanity or bring us to the promised land."
- Charles Campbell on magic words in Subject: headers
