Erich Schubert <email@example.com> (2014-11-25): > HI, HELLO, > > Besides: I'm not sure where you got the impression I owe you anything. > > Any user writing a reasonable bug report deserves to be treated with > respect, and deserves a useful answer (spam and duplicate reports are > an obvious exception). I'm not sure why you think insisting we need this feature within d-i is considered respectful in the first place. As I wrote, a *decision* was made *not* to include such a thing in d-i, and it could have been seen by anyone interested in this topic (which seems to be everyone sending mails at the moment). Coming up with more bug reports looks more like you're harassing developers than anything else. So yes, I did answer, because there's no use letting people do work on this. And I did answer “no” because every possible reason for not including this “feature” in d-i was already given. Why should we spend time discussing “technical merits” if it isn't going to get merged? > Not just a "no" (which is an unwritten "f... off") If I really wanted to write this, believe me, I would have. > Otherwise, our users will stop reporting bugs at all, if you treat > them this way. We surely don't need more bug reports on that specific topic. > It's bad enough that you won't even consider our current #1 installer > feature request as future wishlist item. AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH. > This itself is already highly disrespectful, and I'm not surprised > that some people are annoyed, if all they get in return are "shut up" > messages. Annoying people leads to annoyed people, I couldn't agree more. > I guess we'll see a forked installer sooner or later because of that. Great. Forks are good. People can scratch their itches. KiBi.
Description: Digital signature