| 1 |
Christopher Sawtell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a): |
| 5 |
>> [snip] |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a |
| 8 |
>> bug, then it's not a bug. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> In which case it must be a feature, so why not use the keyword FEATURE? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
Why would we need a keyword for that? We already have "enhancement" as a |
| 14 |
possible value of the severity field. |
| 15 |
> imnsho it's very important not to cause deliberate offense, because doing so |
| 16 |
> perpetuates the idea that FOSS movement people are an unpleasant bunch of |
| 17 |
> individuals. This causes users to make the choice of using computer products |
| 18 |
> from elsewhere, and developers to spend their free time doing other things. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
FOSS _is_ a bunch of individuals, each with their own agenda. Whether |
| 21 |
they're unpleasant or not, it is a subjective issue. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
One of the FOSS strengths is always telling the truth, which applied to |
| 24 |
invalid bugs translates as closing them with INVALID resolution. |
| 25 |
If the reporter takes it as a personal offense, it is by all means his |
| 26 |
problem, not ours. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Someone once said (Linus maybe?) "Linux is user-friendly, only chooses |
| 29 |
its friends more carefully". |
Archives