Re: On maintainers not responding to bugs
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > I already warned you about this privately in december; here's another
> "Warn"? You feel the need to warn me? Does bringing me to STFU make you
> happy or so?
No; I warned you not to put everybody in the same bag in the same
pointless discussion that was happening back then about maintainer not
applying patches timely.
The proposals you made in this thread do not match the attitude you
follow yourself...
> Nice game. Pointless attempt to create a "who wants to throw the first
> stone" situation. Looking at your dirty clothes:
> 401095 359033 371694 372127 372611 373277 375904 403194
> What about them? Now don't tell me "It is okay the package was adopted
> from other bad maintainer". I adopted some bug hives too.
You could _at least_ search for good examples. First, most of the bugs
your took are from Galeon which is RFAed /and/ obsolete; second, these
bugs do not have patches; third, I AM NOT THE ONE WHO ARGUES THAT
MAINTAINERS SHOULD RESPOND TO ALL BUGS, remember: it's you.
You're the guy who's been complaining about "the maintainer is doing
uploads but only for bugs that have RC priority or important" and
proposed the "solution shall be setting some RC priority to all bugs
then".
Back in december, you were also pestering about "maintainers that
prefer to let such bug reports rot instead of tagging them", and back
then I already sent you another list of bug reports to which you did
not bother replying to for MONTHS, even bugs _I_ filed, _with patches_.
And the worse is that you are upstream for most of the bugs I quoted.
So, yes, please, SFTU; your position is so naive that it is pointless;
instead of complaining about what busy maintainers could do, do it
yourself, or find more people to do it. Instead of reading your
bitching about Debian bug handling, I spent some hours yesterday
backporting the 10 bugs with the most duplicate reports from GNOME
upstream (check:
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2007/02/threads.html>), I
bet this was at least 1200% more useful than your arguing.
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
Reply to: