Casey Duncan wrote:
This means it is an unsponsored bug. It should not remain open forever.

Urm, I don't really think this logic is sound ;-)

The bug collector is not a substitute for documentation and issues that
will never be resolved should be closed. Otherwise it wastes the time of
volunteer bug-fixers.

No it doesn't. Closing bugs that can't or won't be fixed is just sweeping crap under the carpet.

I think the current collector is a bit flawed in the available statuses.

I totally agree ;-)

There is no specific way to denote an issue as "won't fix" which means
that it is possibly a bug, but either it is not fixable, is not deemed
worth fixing, cannot be fixed with the information provided, or nobobdy
has fixed it for years so it's not gonna happen.

Yep, I think a "Won't fix" status would be a good thing (tm). I'd even offer to help but I see the other chris has already run into a brick wall o nthat front :-(

I chose to reject the bug hoping that it would cause a reaction, which
it did. I'll admit that "reject" is not exactly the right status,
however the right status is not currently an option for the collector.

Yep, although I think Dieter's comment (and this follow-up by me certainly is) was commenting on the wider issue of people rejecting or closing bugs with too much haste or without addressing the issue in a satisfactory way (such as maybe adding to a mythical "known bugs that currently won't be fixed" file is /doc. I know Andreas is certainly pretty bad on this. It's helpful to weed out the crap (ie rubbish postings, or stuff that should be on the list, or stuff that's in the wrong tracker) but just rejecting quickly without giving good explanation, documenting elsewhere or filing an issue in the right tracker feels pretty bad from my point of view :-S



Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting

Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to