A forgotten patch?

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at intevation.de
Mon Mar 2 12:32:40 CET 2015

On Sunday 01 March 2015 at 20:11:10, Werner Koch wrote:
> > was a bug report for the patch? I would gladly write one if that would
> Well written bug reports are always appreciated.

I believe the main thing that Werner is mentioning here is that
analysis of an unwanted situation and a fix are two different things.
Having a reproducable problem report is very valuable and may be 
easier to agree on as first step. 

Then there are always several ways to improve the situation.
And naturally this may lead to a discussion about what is the best way
to take.

So if anyone find a problem with GnuPG - may it be a defect or a behaviour 
that should be different - best is to get a reproducable behaviour reported 
and get people to agree that it is a problem.

Best Regards,

www.intevation.de/~bernhard (CEO)    www.fsfe.org (Founding GA Member)
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, Germany; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Owned and run by Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20150302/39efa1d7/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list