Re: Bug#88588: libpam-modules: pam-limits.so is broken
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 05:13:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 03:22:48PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >> Ummm, no they don't. To be precise, there is information on the BTS
> >> webpage on how to get the information, yet there is nothing there that
> >> implies you must do it.
> >Checking for previously filed bug reports is common practice. In fact
> >russell expressed that his time constraints kept him from doing so.
> Common practice is NOT required practice: Just because you offer your
> mailman a cup of coffee every day, are you supposed to get up off your
> sickbed to get him one?
Ok then, prefered practice. Take the "reportbug" program, which does
check the BTS, and ask the user if a bug report is the same as their
problem, and then allows them to add comments to the existing bug
report. I think that is a better approach. You do not need a new #### to
file information in the BTS.
> >> Logically, if it's been reported 10 times within 24 hours, it means that
> >> 100 or so people found their system unsuitable (I've found that only about
> >> 10% of the people who find bugs report them, precisely because of abuse
> >> like this) within the same amount of time, and hundreds more will do so
> >> before your fix gets out of incoming. That you'd release a broken package
> >> is one thing, but the fact that you responded abusively and publicly to a
> >> bug report sickens me. Is this the type of person that should be DPL?
> >I don't see anything terribly abusive here, John. Could you point out
> >the abusive parts? Can you show me some name calling, foul language,
> >name calling, insinuations, derragotory comments, "yo mamma..."
> >references, or anything else?
> The public response is enough.
I only see your repsonse against this. Should I assume that there are 10
others that agree with you and just aren't posting? Should I assume that
there are 100 who don't care either way, and maybe 200 who agree with
me, but don't have the time to post saying "yes"? Actually, I'll accept
that this is just you being picky, since even the person's who email I
forwarded agreed that it is nicer to have people check for existing bug
reports and explained that he didn't have the time. I accept this
response, as I'm not overly picky about it either way, I would just
prefer people to check and inspect current bug reports that may pertain
to what they are seeing.
> >Also, sorry if I refuse to accept that your numbers mean that people
> Accept them or not: I suspect that they're an underestimation...
"Suspect" and "estimation" have no place in a factual debate.
> >should not make a practice of checking for bugs reports before filing
> >them. I always do, and I have to file roughly 50 bug reports a week (and
> >some times more). The reason I posted it to -devel is because I wanted
> >others to see the PAM problem, and know that a bug report was filed, and
> >also to raise awareness of checking for bug reports before filing.
> Then wouldn't -user be more appropriate? There are at least three threads
> being propagated about it ATM. BTW, you owe Colin Watson for the fact
> that there aren't even more: he's been doing a pretty good job of
> explaining the situation on -user.
Yes, and I have seen this going on. He has handled it quite well, and it
is the reason I have not had to post to that list. Much thanks to him.
> >Lastly, it really is irritating for you to take something as trivial as
> >this point to turn it into "is this the type of DPL you will be!?". No,
> Trivial? A contraindication of both SC 3 and 4? Okay, whatever...
> Encouraging people to not file bugs for whatever reason is contributing to
> the hiding of problems: someone's take on one bug may cast light on a
> totally separate (and possibly unreported) bug.
> Discouraging people to file bugs for whatever reason substantially lessens
> the users perceived priority: The DD's peace of mind is apparently more
> important than the user's working system.
Encouraging people to check for existing bug reports pertaining to their
bug is better. There may be information in the existing bug report that
says something that just may trigger a solution to this new bug
reporter. Keeping bugs together is a solid and consistent way to handle
things. It allows all information to be in a single place.
> >this is the type of person I am, and the type of developer I am. That
> >wont change regardless of being DPL or not. If you do not like how I
> >act, then refrain from the DPL connection, because it truely has nothing
> >to do with that. IMO, you just want to nitpick because you don't like
> >me. I can accept that you don't like me. Heck, I don't like you much
> I don't really care much either way about you, you and I just happen to be
> on the opposite sides of many issues. One of your opponents in the DPL
> election (Branden Robinson) seems to think that my choice of username
> is fair game in debate, so I have learned the hard way that there is
> nothing that may not be used. Nothing personal, I just disagree
> vehemently with most of what you say and think that you have too big an
> ego to become DPL. You think that your status as DD makes you something
> special, I think it means you signed on to do something special.
I think I perform a service for Debian and it's users. I take that
reposnibility seriously, and I expect others to do the same. Shoot me
for having some pride in my work, and for pushing the envelope for
others to do the same.
> >either. However, the difference is, I'll try to avoid confrontation with
> >you, while you try to seek it with me. Who do you think the better
> >person is?
> I seek out ALL confontation on issues I hold dear, no matter who with.
> Different strokes for different folks...
You must lead a very unhappy and stressful life. I on the other hand,
prefer to choose my battles. Why fight for useless things? Maybe you
just need confrontation? I don't.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` email@example.com -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- email@example.com '