On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Craig van Nieuwkerk <crai...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > With all due respect, explaining a broken process doesn't make it any > less > > broken. > > > > I didn't read anything that lead me to believe the process is broken. > A number of fair reasons were given why a bug might not be fixed. > > 1. Can't be reproduced > 2. Not really a bug > 3. Will have significant backwards compatibility issues > 4. Not part of the product that is a priority going forward > 5. Extreme edge case > > You may disagree with their decision, especially when you are not > privy to the reasoning behind it, but to think they just dismiss user > reported bugs is a bit ridiculous. > > Agreed. the parts you mention are not broken. Some of the parts you don't mention are: 1."Won't fix" might mean will never fix, might almost mean "postponed" - no way to tell the difference. 2. Can't tell if bugs are user generated so replies often not sent. 3. Database upgrades lose information. I would suggest these parts are broken. And in the spirit of a post from a while back: *+1. I agree with everything I just said.* Cheers Dave Craig, >
