Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Trac policy on "won't fix" issue
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-27 02:13:25

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Trac policy on "won't fix" issue

> 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.

What about "suspended"? From the developer point of view it is clear that there is nothing to do until the reasons for which the ticket was suspended change. From the point of view of the user, a suspended ticket can be considered as open.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at