Follow-up Comment #11, bug #60927 (group groff): [comment #10 comment #10:] >>> Closing as invalid. >> >> ...classification as "invalid" seems kind of harsh. > > No harshness intended; the definition of "Invalid" status in _groff_'s > ticket tracker on Savannah is "The issue is inapplicable, erroneous, or > infeasible; see comments." Okay, but I share the frustration which you express below, because _I_ cannot see, or in any way, access that definition. > (Here, the term "inapplicable", er, applies.) Agreed. > Frustratingly, I don't know that anyone but the admins of said ticket > tracker have any way to view that definition--and then only by > attempting to edit it. Indeed. And _I_ don't have permission to edit _groff_'s field values, so I have no way to access the field description. > I've raised an issue with Savane/Savannah's own > developers regarding this lacuna. > > https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?111303 Okay, but unfortunately, that's not immediately helpful. > I've annotated several _groff_ ticket summaries with '[not our problem]' > over the years, but one infer harshness from that, too.[1] Perhaps. To me, "invalid" implies that the original submission is defective. When I was managing the MinGW trackers, we had additional classification choices for "outdated", (meaning that it had ceased to be our problem), "self-service", (meaning that we thought the issue was the user's to resolve), and "non-mingw", (meaning that we thought that the issue should be referred elsewhere). Perhaps you could consider adding similar additional field values for _groff_'s tracker? (Even adding just "inapplicable" would offer a potentially less apparently harsh option).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60927>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
