Re: interpretation of wontfix
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 08:27:09 +0200
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: interpretation of wontfix
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:08:23PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > The documentation of wontfix currently allows for both
> > interpretations, and I think both are OK, especially if that helps
> > maintainers filter out bugs that aren't ever going to be fixed.
> > I think that the use of wontfix+help can disambiguate between the two
> > interpretations.
> > For example:
> > 1) wontfix: This bug isn't going to be fixed; don't bother helping.
> > 2) wontfix+help: this bug requires too much effort to fix, so I won't be
> > working on it, but patches will be accepted.
> > 3) help: I want to fix this bug, but I'm blocking on assistance from
> > someone
> > But that's not documented at all.
> Indeed. This is the first I have heard of combining wontfix+help, and I
> suspect I'm not the only one.
> I am not sure I can distinguish between your cases (2) and (3). Isn't
> the reason you need assistance that it requires too much effort to fix?
In my interpretation 3) means: I need help and I'm actively seeking for
it by asking upstream, on debian-mentors, debian-ports, my parents ;-)
etc. As I previously said I will also keep on watching this bug whether
some help might have been arrived in the bug log since I might have
missed something in the incoming channels.
In contrast to this in case 2) I will not check again a bug tagged
wontfix+help and I will not become active myself to seek for help.
> Or are you distinguishing between needing help because it's too much
> effort and needing help because you don't have the requisite knowledge?
> (There is a sense in which these are the same thing.)
> > Would a sentence: "Use the help tag in addition to the wontfix tag if
> > you would still accept a patch that fixed this issue." to the wontfix
> > description be useful?
> Notwithstanding my comments above, I don't want to bikeshed, so yes, I
> think such a sentence would be useful.