| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I certainly don't think the work needs to go away if the work is |
| 4 |
> > considered to be important. It's fine to have open bugs for years |
| 5 |
> > in the absence of a good solution. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I get what you're saying, though there is still a cost to leaving the |
| 8 |
> bug open to years. In this case it means an old package stays in the |
| 9 |
> tree marked as stable. That either costs maintainers the effort to |
| 10 |
> keep it work, or they don't bother to keep in working in which case |
| 11 |
> users get saddled with issues. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Correct. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I am completely in support of making use of the priority field - if |
| 16 |
> something is causing issues by all means call attention to it. I bet |
| 17 |
> it would /help/ with the problem, but it won't make it go away. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It might help, but, no, it will not make the problem go away. |
| 20 |
The issue is that the arch team and maintainer may have different |
| 21 |
ideas of what is high priority. If a maintainer opens a high priority |
| 22 |
stable request or bumps a stable request to high priority, there is no |
| 23 |
guarantee that the arch team will feel it should be prioritized the same |
| 24 |
way, and when that happens, users are stuck with issues from the old |
| 25 |
versions of the software. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
William |
Archives