On 11/08/2010 05:06 PM, Paul Sladen wrote:
> Would it help if I labelled this "papercut". (Comparatively easy fix
> that currently impacts a large number of people).
No, it would not help to label this "papercut". We do not agree that
this is a bug, so the relative ease of changing the behaviour is
irrelevant. As for impacting a large number of people, this is
difficult to accept, because this behaviour has existed since 2005, and
it seems like someone would have reported it already if it really did
affect a large number of people.
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/08/2010 05:06 PM, Paul Sladen wrote:
> Would it help if I labelled this "papercut". (Comparatively easy fix
> that currently impacts a large number of people).
No, it would not help to label this "papercut". We do not agree that
this is a bug, so the relative ease of changing the behaviour is
irrelevant. As for impacting a large number of people, this is
difficult to accept, because this behaviour has existed since 2005, and
it seems like someone would have reported it already if it really did
affect a large number of people.
Aaron enigmail. mozdev. org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAkz YuCUACgkQ0F+ nu1YWqI1tlQCcCI kJ2LXGIc3ipv/ bYfkVC33X AyrqcvrPTx0d1jo Ed
hlAAnj6go4SivlI
=noD/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----