From owner-freebsd-bugs Fri Apr 24 15:52:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19189 for freebsd-bugs-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hwcn.org (ac199@james.hwcn.org [199.212.94.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA19150; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:51:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hoek@hwcn.org) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by hwcn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA06344; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:46:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek To: Garrett Wollman cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/4183 In-Reply-To: <199804241607.MAA09700@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > Is it even worthwhile leaving these "suspended" instead of > > "closed"? > > I think so. While the effect may be the same, it is useful to > distinguish between ``reasonable but unfinished'' and ``completely > dealt with''. FWIW, the aggressive mail-archive user will realize that I argued on the side of using "suspended" when phk first came under attack for doing this. My comment was referring to the single specific PR, which seemed to fall into the same category as "Will someone please upgrade Perl"; the presence of a PR for this type of request doesn't seem to help much. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message