Re: [boost] Trac policy on "won't fix" issue

Subject: Re: [boost] Trac policy on "won't fix" issue
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-27 02:04:44

Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:

> On Tuesday 26 May 2009 22:16:46 Henrik Sundberg wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 26 May 2009 18:52:18 Robert Ramey wrote:
>> >> What I really need is an option "can't fix".  Since I don't have that
>> >> I use "won't fix".  About half the time, the original poster
>> >> reopens it because he thinks I should fix it anyway.  At this
>> >> point I just leave it open and move on.
>>
>> Perhaps you should reset them to won't fix after a couple of months again?
>>
>> > I would leave such bugs open and thus make them easier to find,
>>
>> Are they really easier to find this way?
> 
> If I find something that strikes me as odd, I browse the open bug reports and
> file one myself if it isn't listed yet. Actually, this is only the second
> step, the first is that I look at the FAQ or list of known issues in the
> documentation for the module to see if the misbehavior I perceive is known and
> possibly even intended. However, I don't look in the "closed" issues.
> Depending on how the issue search is configured in TRAC, the "search for open
> issues" could well include unfixable bugs, so it isn't strictly necessary to
> mark the issue with the "open" state, an "unfixable" state would also work
> then.
> 
> Actually, in different words, maybe it just takes a few other possibilities
> for the state of an issue, in order to classify different states of "open",
> like "open but unfixable". Note that TRAC allows attaching arbitrary keywords
> to an issue, maybe that would also be an option do do that.
> 
> 
>> > otherwise you get the gun of closing duplicate bug reports.
> [Note: should have read "fun", not "gun"]
>>
>> That should not be a reason for leaving tickets as open.
>> I'd say that it's more important to know what problems are actually
>> under consideration to fix. Why should "open" have the extra meaning
>> "this will never be implemented"?
> 
> "open" means just that, and it classifies the current state of the issue. If
> something is a bug but not fixable for whatever reason its current state is
> "open" because it is not fixed at the moment. 

There are different definitions of "open". For me, "open" issue is an action item,
which implies that issue must be actionable upon. 

- Volodya