On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Sebastien Bacher <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> the launchpad nautilus bug has been closed
> because that's not a nautilus bug and such changes should be discussed
> on a mailing list where you will get comments on and not a bug tracker.
> the way to do that would be to copy some templates in the user
> directory, note that doing that automatically when adding an user has
> been decided against before because it's specific to GNOME and users
> doing server installation don't want those template for example.
I understand that the change required doesn't necessarily affect
nautilus. And I agree that the templates should not be included for a
However, I don't agree that just because an issue requires discussion
on a mailing list, it is appropriate to mark the bug as "Invalid".
Valid bugs are frequently discussed on the lists. It's either a valid
problem, or it isn't. In this case in my previous email I was
expressing the opinion that it is a valid problem, and therefore that
the bug should not have been closed. Obviously, you're free to
disagree with that
You also seem to be suggesting that the fact that the fix to the bug
would not be in nautilus is an independent reason to close the bug. If
so, I don't agree with that either: marking a bug as invalid carries
stigma, because it implies to the reporter that the issue reported is
not a real problem, and because invalid bugs are not included in
searches. The simplest approach in such cases is simply to change the
affected source package to another one. If it is unclear what package
is affected, the "source package" box can be left blank.
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF
ubuntu-desktop mailing list