On 10 April 2014 22:08, Daniel Narvaez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10 April 2014 21:18, James Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:27:09PM +0100, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>> > What I'm saying is that the "would be nice" to fix will never be
>> > fixed, they will keep accumulating and we will waste triage time on
>> > them over and over. Better to just wontfix them, people can always
>> > send patches if they care. Plus we tell them clearly it's up to them
>> > to do something if they need them fixed.
>>
>> I agree, if there's nobody going to work on a ticket, then close it
>> wontfix. The bug tracking system is useful as a list of non-features.
>>
>
> Not what I said. And not even funny.
>
My sarcasm detector was inaccurate here. Further explanation in irc, which
I agree with.
21:30 < Quozl`> dnarvaez_: the existence of a ticket is a report of feature
mismatch between human and software. wontfix is a policy
decision of the project. policy can be set by resource
constraint. it's fine, close 'em.
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
