Re: Don't report new bugs for Rmail??

[Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> But you just said that a package named "rmail" does not exist,
> didn't you?

As far as the BTS is concerned, it doesn't exist. Bugs are allowed to
be assigned to packages which do not exist.
 
> Rmail's maintainer is "FSF". Which means that Emacs maintainers are
> collectively responsible for maintaining Rmail.

Doesn't really matter to me who is responsible for it; I just need a
mailing address.

> Well, that request can easily be interpreted as meaning that bug
> reports against Rmail are not welcome. I think this is not what we
> want to say.

It is actually what is meant. If a package doesn't exist, people
shouldn't file bugs against it. The problem here is that the package
*should* apparently exist, and no one has bothered to communicate that
fact.

> It's IMO inconsistency to allow bugs be filed against a package that
> doesn't exist.

The alternative is rejecting them entirely, which I think is the wrong
decision. The reports are allowed to be filed on the presumption that
somone later will look at the bug reports and assign them to the
appropriate package.


Don Armstrong

-- 
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
 -- Bill Vaughan

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu