Hello, On 2009 m. April 9 d., Thursday 14:58:18 Enzo wrote: > But is a little disappointing to see that the more long discussions have > to be more with personal problems/opinions than with the software (like > Lancelot locks accessing NTFS partition or KDE 4.2 moving to unstable > *this* week threads). The last few weeks were quite tense. Therefore discussions sometimes became quite offensive. Another reason is that they both were quite long overdue. For example, Debian KDE bug handling "policy" (it became such over time unwillingly and I don't see it changing due to the lack of manpower) has already been like this for the last couple of years (hence the number of bugs which has accumulated). However, it has simply never been official stated or explained anywhere. We know it might NOT be perfect or even good, however it is the best Debian Qt/KDE Team can do at the moment. I believe it is better for users to know that beforehand than get angry and annoyed because nobody cares about her/his bug report... And now here come people out of blue who say: >If Debian can't shoulder the burden of maintaining KDE, they shouldn't be >packaging it. That's harsh, disrespectful and quite insulting statement for both users and developers. Sometimes people forget that Debian is community/volunteer driven and we try to do our best. Suggestions about improvements are welcome, but demands are very impolite and unfair. > It's always like that? Nop. I think it will get back to normal soon with another spike when KDE 4 migrates to testing. > The users (like me) are > always so hard to understand the point of view > of the developers? I think most users understand perfectly. > I think that we should just shut up some times and accept the opinion of > people that knows things because it's doing it, and not because thinks > that would be made in some way. > Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my opinion. Thanks for all anyway, your help > it's appreciated, and the results are wonderful. You are absolutely right. -- Modestas Vainius <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.