1 |
Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:36:13 -0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs |
4 |
> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug |
5 |
> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is |
6 |
> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump. |
7 |
|
8 |
This looks like a reasonable compromise indeed. =:^) |
9 |
|
10 |
Tho I'd still suggest that like other "low priority" bugs, the package |
11 |
maintainer can still resolve it as LATER, BLUESKY (tho AFAIK gentoo's |
12 |
bugzilla doesn't have that one), or even WONTFIX (as opposed to |
13 |
INVALID). The bug should be considered valid, so INVALID isn't correct, |
14 |
but disallowing WONTFIX simply gets in the way of proper communication. |
15 |
If a package maintainer WONTFIX, it's better to let them actually SAY |
16 |
that, so the bug filer can get on with life, knowing they'll have to |
17 |
longterm maintain their own overlay copy if they want the EAPI bump bad |
18 |
enough, than to have the bug simply sit there, ignored. |
19 |
|
20 |
Talking about which. what about a resolution PATCHESACCEPTED? IOW, I |
21 |
don't care enough to bother with it myself, but if you provide the patch, |
22 |
I'll take it. Tho I guess WORKSFORME sort of fits, if the definition is |
23 |
bent far enough. |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
27 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
28 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |