From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Mail that shuld not be sent here Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:24:46 +0900 Message-ID: <87ej7ge4lt.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20080530165402.GR15311@volo.donarmstrong.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1212387179 14738 80.91.229.12 (2 Jun 2008 06:12:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:12:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , don@donarmstrong.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 02 08:13:40 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K33IY-0004Wq-6H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:13:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42743 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K33Hl-0002at-JE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:12:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K33Hf-0002Yg-C7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:12:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K33Hd-0002X8-Q1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:12:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59406 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K33Hd-0002Wy-Hl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:12:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:44658) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K33HV-0004sY-T4; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:12:34 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B721535AF; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:12:30 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 911CB1A25C3; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:24:46 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM ?bug? under XEmacs 21.5.21 (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:98214 Archived-At: Richard M Stallman writes: > But even most of those people have no reason to be interested in the > bug tracker messages for any particular bug. Usually only the person > who reported it and the person who fixes it are interested in the bug > tracker status. That turns out not to be true. (1) Maintainers are always interested in the status of all bugs. There is a difference between committing a patch and closing the bug. (2) People who are not really paying attention to thread because they have a workaround will occasionally wake up and say "don't close that, you didn't fix/broke my use case." (3) In an active project there will be a large and growing gap between total bugs and open bugs. Seeing the flow of activity allows people in general to see that work is being done at a reasonable rate, despite this steady accumulation of open issues. These cases notwithstanding, I agree that it's a bad idea for bug-gnu-emacs because Emacs is unlikely to change to a tracker-centric workflow soon, but it's not as obviously a bad idea as your sweeping statements would have it.