Re: Bugs that depend on other bugs

[Will Glass-Husain]

It seems reasonable to me to keep this as a Velocity bug.  This can be a 
tickler for updating the jar file once the dependent library fixes the bug. 
It also prevents dup issues from getting created.

WILL
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shinobu Kawai Yoshida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Velocity Developers List" <velocity-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 4:21 AM
Subject: Bugs that depend on other bugs


Hi Will,
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8651
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-01-19 
01:50 -------
I'm against using setAccessible within Velocity.  It's hard enough to
configure the security policies for a webapp container as it is.  Why add
another requirement to the mess?
Me too.  -1 for using setAccessible within Velocity.
But what should be done for bugs that depend on other bugs?  Should
there be a uncommitted patch so whoever can't wait for the fix can
apply?  Or should we just let them wait for the root bug to get fixed?
## As for me, I say redirect them to nag the root bug people.  eg.
with votes, etc.
FYI, Bugzilla #33020 also depends on a bug of commons-collections.
  http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33020
Best regards,
-- Shinobu
--
Shinobu "Kawai" Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]