From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 4K Bugs Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:52:57 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87mvszdp6b.fsf@gnus.org> <567E4ABA.3080803@online.de> <87d1ttxnrr.fsf@gnus.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451184822 13688 80.91.229.3 (27 Dec 2015 02:53:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 02:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com, andreas.roehler@online.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 27 03:53:33 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aD1Sa-0006ZN-Lo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 03:53:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40572 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aD1Sa-0004vh-2S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:53:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35198) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aD1SH-0004tk-NT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:53:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aD1SG-0003GB-Tn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:53:09 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34642) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aD1S6-00037X-7e; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:52:58 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aD1S5-0003vm-Fi; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:52:57 -0500 In-reply-to: <87d1ttxnrr.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:55:36 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196953 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Bug reports have value. Some more than others, of course. :-) If they > present a reproducible bug, then it seems odd to close the report. If, > on the other hand, they are not reproducible, or they require more data > from the user for us to proceed with debugging (and that data doesn't > arrive within a certain period (for the Emacs bug tracker, that period > is "some years", apparently), then they should be closed, because we > can't proceed in any meaningful sense. I agree -- but is there a way to distinguish the bug reports we close for lack of information, from those that are closed for other reasons? When we close bug reports because we did not get the further information necessary to fix them, I'd say those bug reports have been "abandoned". Can we make a way for debbugs to distinguish abandoned bug reports? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.