wontfix close vs open (was Re: Exclicitly or "implicitly" mark architectures a packages does not build)
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:24:19 +0100
- From: IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) <umlaeute@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: wontfix close vs open (was Re: Exclicitly or "implicitly" mark architectures a packages does not build)
On 2017-12-20 15:31, Wookey wrote:
> Leaving it open wontfix makes it easy for someone to find the issue in
> the future and see what decision was made and why, and that the
> current situation is as correct as we can currently make it. But
> closing is also OK IMHO. The reasoning will still get archived.
speaking of wontfix bugs:
is there a way to hide wontfix bugs from the list of bugs on "my"¹ qa page?
this might already be the case (afair i currently don't have any open
"wontfix" bugs), but it is something that keeps bothering me, so i'm
raising it now that i got the cue :-)
the BTS is both for users (those who report a bug) and developers (those
that fix a bug).
i understand that the first group should be made aware that there are
issues that aren't going to be fixed.
otoh i think that the second group shouldn't be bothered with bugs that
they have already discarded (unless they are in a mood of "let's revise
aiui to cater for the first group, bugs are tagged "wontfix" and left open.
for the 2nd group, it strikes me more logical to tag the bug "wontfix"
and close it.
to cater for the needs of both groups, i think it would be nice to have
two different views on all bugs (of a package, of a DM/team, of ...):
- all open bugs including those "wontfix"
- all closed bugs including those "wontfix"
is this something that's already there and i just missed it?