Bug#549412: freebsd-utils: fails to mount nfs: mount_nfs not found
On Tuesday 28 September 2010 10:54:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Alan BRASLAU <firstname.lastname@example.org> (28/09/2010):
> > I find your use of the word "complaining" disrespectful. A bug
> > report serves to give feedback, and being polite should be answered
> > politely.
> Insisting on a particular severity regardless of the maintainer's
> opinion is disrespectful. (Oh wait, the maintainers are even porters,
> so maybe they can figure out which severity is appropriate?)
> > NFS is a core functionality in many ways. It is therefore legitimate
> > that this bug be reported.
> That doesn't mean people can annoy maintainers until the feature is
All one asks for is politeness. The use of "complaining", "annoying",
etc. shows no respect for the community. Do developers really
want to be isolated, or are they indeed interested in getting
feedback from users/testers?
A bug report reflects needs. Maintainers can politely give information
on meeting these needs (or on the inappropriateness/marginality of
these particular needs).
The problem with the current issue is that the maintainers/promoters
of kfreebsd ask about fitness for release and would somehow like
for this kernel to be adopted by part of the community.
Functionality so basic (and so long-standing) as NFS should be included.
I suppose that the porting is not so trivial, otherwise it would
already be included. But much contradictory information
on this question can be found on the web, including messages
from maintainers claiming that it is there!
The purpose of the bug report is to clarify the situation,
not to provoke over-sensitive reactions on the part of developers.
Tit-for-tat responses are indeed unproductive and demotivating.
Such reactions show annoyance, and annoyance reveals unease.