On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Erich Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am trying to argue that the bug does not warrant closure, wine-devel does > not seem like an appropriate venue for such a discussion. I am quite > familiar with how much effort goes into properly implementing a full-fledged > library for working with HTTP, I have done it several times in several > languages. I initiated that bug to serve as a starting point to say "we > need a minimal implementation", which I think was successfully illustrated. > I was not aware that someone was already working on something, otherwise I > would have contacted them in order to get a head start. > > Honestly, I believe that this problem illustrates the need for these kind of > bugs - if I had found a bug for WinHttp in bugzilla assigned to Zac then I > could easily contact him. I do not have time to monitor wine-devel in order > keep track of what everyone is working on so that I can keep from stepping > on people's toes. Wine is not my full time job, and I think it is > unreasonable to expect people to keep track of this kind of off-the-tree > activity without some sort of database like bugzilla to keep track of who is > doing what. As I'm sure other people do, I only have time to do work on > Wine when I'm on my vacation. >
Exactly. You open a bug stating that 'Command & Conquere Red Alert 3 fails to authenticate' and then add in a bug comment that the problem is because of missing required winhttp functionality. Zac then sees the bug report and adds his own comment stating whether he has time to work on it or not plus any additional information he has to help others that want to work on the bug. There's really no point in arguing about policy. We don't allow metabugs, exactly because they serve no purpose and usually hinder the development process. My original suggestion was to open a new bug report for the fact that C&C doesn't work, and that suggestion still stands. Please don't top-post on this mailing list. -- James Hawkins