From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Feb 11 19:33:50 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6D937B401; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDF543FAF; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:33:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0140.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.140] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ineb-0001vD-00; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:33:46 -0800 Message-ID: <3E49C045.E519DD90@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:32:21 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marc G. Fournier" , bugbusters@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bugzilla? (was Re: Okay, I think I need some serious introduction;-) References: <20030209185618.GA19962@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <20030209151407.N548@localhost> <2e1y2e7jtu.y2e@localhost.localdomain> <3E498592.5E5BF4EE@mindspring.com> <20030211211426.A43952@hub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a468ce00c315b1942f2fb7283e6f2c0196350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ ... redirected to 'bugbusters' ... ] "Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > The problem with this approach is that it's possible to ignore > > a PR to make it go away, without the underlying problem being > > repaired/acknowledged. > > And that is different then now, leaving it open? The information is not destroyed that the bug was never in fact actually resolved. If you want to have a "I can't fit it" or "I won't fix it" status for the bug, fine, but do not claim it is resolved when it can not be proven, via a regression test, that it is, in fact, resolved. > How many PRs right now contain patches that ppl have 'ignored' All open ones with patches attached, of course. > and, as a result, are no longer even relevant to the code? You probably really mean "the code is no longer relevent to the patch", since the patch has not changed in the interim; from the patch's point of view, that translates to one of: o that the code was changed by someone who did not properly maintain the patch o that the code was changed by someone who did not properly check for a patch o that the current process failed to "lock" the section of code that the patch applied to, because the current process has a bug -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message