Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:05:01 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> To: chuckr@picnic.mat.net Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/13729: strip(1) exits with an error on script file - causes severe portability problems Message-ID: <99Sep16.080253est.40325@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909131235280.55943-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:39:23 +1000, Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> wrote: (Judging by the headers, this item spent a couple fo days getting from Chuck to hub). >This kind of thing, where there is no bug ... where the subject is a >request for a new feature, isn't this kind of thing the wrong way for >folks to be using the trouble reporting system? I don't think so. send-pr(1) allows the following classes: >Class: <[ sw-bug | doc-bug | change-request ] (one line)> And we have no other tracking mechanism for users' change requests. There are frequent requests on the general mailing lists to send-pr things so they don't get lost. It also allows non-committers (such as myself) to formally submit new features. > It seems to me that allowing >such use of gnats makes it miserably hard for folks to close some PRs. I agree that mis-classifying feature requests as bugs (which Patrick has done) causes problems, but this should be handled via a mechanism to re-classify the PR. I don't see a problem with having a large number of `new feature requests' outstanding - as long as they can be identified as such. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99Sep16.080253est.40325>