[darcs-users] Do you really mean resolved here? (Was: [issue1304] do we need patch contexts to get inverses? no)
kowey at darcs.net
Fri Mar 13 13:28:11 UTC 2009
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:06:29 +0100, Thorkil Naur wrote:
> Now, I don't really care, but it seems useful to be consistent about the
> status usage.
Sorry about that, Thorkil. I should have just left it as it was.
I was flip-flopping on this, and then I realised that's what we have an
Issue Manager for! (which is why I changed it back to wont-fix before
receiving your mail).
> I also considered changing to resolved, but my thinking was
> that, since the issue is really pointing at a potential problem in the
> manual, changing the status to resolved would seem to imply that we had
> actually changed the manual accordingly, somehow. So I chose wont-fix, to
> indicate that no changes had been carried out as a result of this report.
I think in my head it was that wont-fix implies there was something to
fix (i.e. a missing feature or a bug), but that we either can't or don't
want to fix; and that resolved was situations where we actually did take
some action or there was no action needed (e.g. resolved by time machine,
or the thing you want is in the manual already). I should probably
brush up on our bug tracker policy!
> In the GHC bugtracker, there is a status "invalid" for this sort of thing, I
> agree that with the current description of wont-fix, the ends don't really
This might be useful for things of the sort, spam, misdirected messages,
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the darcs-users