Re: [Pnet-developers] [Bug #2806] CSCC virtual memory exhausted

[James Michael DuPont]

--- Fergus Henderson <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 19-Mar-2003, Rhys Weatherley <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 05:25 pm, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > 
> > > No, because at that point you can with good conscience file their
> report
> > > as an enhancement request, not a bug report.
> > 
> > And at what point can I mark it as "closed" and hence no longer on
> the list
> > of issues to be addressed?
> 
> Wishlist items can be left open indefinitely.  It doesn't mean that
> anyone
> has to address them.  It doesn't even mean that anyone has to look at
> those items ever again.  Each wishlist item just means that someone
> has
> expressed a wish for a particular enhancement.
> 
> > This is fundamentally an issue about when a bug/feature/whatever
> can finally 
> > be considered dealt with and no further discussion will be entered
> into.
> 
> Suppose someone came up with a clean patch which addressed this
> issue.
> Would you accept such a patch?  (I think you should.)
> 
> If so, then the issue should be left open.
> 
> If not, why not?

Yes, Why no just leave them open?
Is i that you dont want people to see what the issues are? How many
bugs have been closed, but are not resolved. I wonder what would the
real open bug list be if they were not close prematurly?

> 
> > So, let me turn this around for a second.  Let's say a bug/request
> was logged 
> > against Mercury, that no matter what you did it was impossible to
> satisfy 
> > everyone with an interest in the issue.  What do you do?
> 
> If a request was logged against Mercury, asking for better error
> messages,
> I would never consider this request impossible to satisfy.  If the
> current
> design of the Mercury implementation was such that it too difficult
> to provide better error messages, then I would file this item in the
> "wish list", and would then forget about it.  Note that the "wish
> list"
> is NOT the same as the "task list".
> 
> Even if different users made diametrically opposed requests, I would
> generally not consider this impossible to satisfy -- usually both
> groups
> can be satisfied by providing compiler options (or equivalent) to
> select
> different behaviour.
> 
> If some request was made such that it was truly impossible to satisfy
> everyone with an interest in the issue, then I would close the issue,
> giving an explanation of why it was impossible to satisfy the request
> without sacrificing another functional requirement which was
> considered
> more important.  But that does not appear to be the case in the
> instance
> under discussion.

yes, this is why I ask for the bug to be left open and assigned to me.
These bugs that rhsy |Won't Fix| maybe bugs that other people will. The
whole issue is of communication. 

By closing bugs that are not open, you are confusing people. They might
just report the same bug again. If someone is looking for something to
to, you can point them to the bug list... but it is much more difficult
if they have to browse all the bugs and review them for the exact
reason they where closed.



=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com