Re: interpretation of wontfix
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:21:58 +0200
- From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: interpretation of wontfix
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 14:02 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Don Armstrong writes ("Re: interpretation of wontfix"):
> > > 2) wontfix+help: this bug requires too much effort to fix, so I won't be
> > > working on it, but patches will be accepted.
> > I dislike the use of "help" in this context. If the maintainers think
> > the bug is not worth their *own* time, it seems perverse for the
> > maintainers to set a tag which suggests to other contributors that
> > they should spend *their* time on it.
> The case which caused this thread was "maintainer does not have the
> time/inclination to investigate/fix bugs on this non-release
> architecture", the implication being that "the porters of that arch
> should deal with this bug and provide a patch which the maintainer will
> To that end perhaps this is a special enough case of "help" that a
> specific "porter" tag is warranted? (or perhaps a set of "porter-ARCH"
> tags or a combination of "porter" and "ARCH" tags, or whatever). In
> fact I don't see why we would limit it to non-release arches, it seems
> useful for release arches too.
> Or perhaps this just needs a consensus on the appropriate use of some
> `port@xxxxxxxxxx` usertags?
You mean like https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/03/msg00015.html ?
(that never really caught on though)
I still think that having a per-port tag (which is *not* a usertag)
would be a good idea, but Don wasn't convinced (at the time; perhaps he
could be convinced today).
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008