Re: 4K Bugs

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <address@hidden> writes:

 >>>> Semantically, “closed” means that there’s no bug (any more) – that
 >>>> is, the recipe given by the reporter does not reproduce the issue,
 >>>> or the reporter is found to be mistaken on the feature’s intended
 >>>> (and documented) behavior.

 >>> I disagree that this is the semantics of "closed".

 >> That doesn’t sound constructive; what semantics do you suggest?

 > I think I described the semantics in the earlier message?  The one
 > with critical/wishlish/closed?

 LI> From "critical" ("LOOK AT THIS!!!") via "wishlist" ("if you have
 LI> the time...") to "closed" ("I think it's rather likely that this
 LI> isn't interesting").

        I believe that severity was made orthogonal to the (open,
        closed, archived) status (and to the tags) on purpose.

 >> Of course, there’s always an option of starting a “community fork”
 >> of the Emacs bug tracking system, so that the users can track the
 >> bugs the developers found to be unworthy of being open.

 > I don't know what this means.  All the bug reports, no matter what
 > their statuses, are in the bug tracker.  If you wish to follow only
 > the bugs that are marked all og
 > wishlist/wontfix/unreproducible/closed, that's just a couple of lines
 > in debbugs-gnu.  Be my guest.

        I wish to follow the bugs that are /extant/, per the semantics
        I’ve given earlier.  Such bugs may happen to be of any severity
        and may bear any tags; and per the semantics you suggest, they
        may also be open, closed, or archived.  That is: there’s no way
        to /omit/ the feature requests that were actually implemented
        (or became otherwise irrelevant) – and /show/ all the rest.

        The data to discern the two are simply not there.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  http://am-1.org/~ivan/      … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A