On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:27:29PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:12:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> writes: > > > > > You and others are most welcome to take a stab at the 1000 open bugs > > > against the official kdepackages. > > > > "You and others" cannot substitute for a response *from the package > > maintainer* acknowledging (or otherwise) the bug report. That's the > > criterion being discussed here: not a resolution for the reported bug, > > but rather a first response from the package maintainer to the bug > > report, to acknowledge that it has not been ignored. > > And what he's telling you, and what I'm telling you, is that it's a > completely crap criterion for those of us who deal with massive packagesets > like KDE. Simply replying to a bug won't get it fixed any sooner or > decrease the impact it has on the user. In addition, it distracts us from > doing what is potentially far more productive work. bleh, you're totally wrong ! That *is* an excellent criterium, if you need proof, look at the libc: too many unanswered bugs, it should not be in testing. End of story. The releasable set of packages is now void, we can release any minute now ! -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpwt0s96GJ6H.pgp
Description: PGP signature