Re: On maintainers not responding to bugs

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:

>   SO rather than sending excuses-templates, when I've had time to check
> the bug is actually there, I do use the confirmed tag to:
>   * ack this is an actual bug ;
>   * ack that I've been able to reproduce it (hence implying that I've
>     read the report) ;
>   * remember that I already read that report.

For my part, this use of the 'confirmed' tag, which (I believe) gets
sent back to the submitter, is ample feedback that the bug has been
triaged by a real human.

>   And hell no I won't send "standard" mails to submitters, I hate to
> receive such mails, I won't send such. I like to receive mail when there
> is useful information. When I submit a bug, I know there is one, so the
> "ack there is a bug" mail is somehow ... polluting my mailbox.

If you use tags ('confirmed' or otherwise) for the same purpose, and
that causes the submitter to be actively notified that the bug report
was triaged by a real human, then in my view that's sufficient for a
reasonable user to be assured the bug hasn't been ignored.

-- 
 \     "If you're a young Mafia gangster out on your first date, I bet |
  `\    it's real embarrassing if someone tries to kill you."  -- Jack |
_o__)                                                           Handey |
Ben Finney