On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:58:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:18:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > How hard it is for users to fix, or for you to fix isn't the question,
> > remotely.
> Of course it is:
> minor
> wishlist
Did you notice any of the bugs having severities of "minor" or "wishlist" ?
> The difficulty involved in fixing a bug does indeed impact the severity
> of a bug, though of course it's not the sole criterion.
And that one would be the "red herring" fallacy. The definitions of "minor"
and "wishlist" don't have anything to do with determining which of "normal",
"serious" or "grave" a bug should be.
> > > If there are people using woody who can't handle firing up a text editor
> > > to remove a pair of quotes from a 2-line file, they need to go back to
> > > playing Pong.
> > That one'd be your basic "ad hominem".
> Again, incorrect. I'm not attempting to refute the speaker's argument
> by attacking his character, skills, or knowledge, since he presumably
> DOES have the skill to edit a text file (and implied that he has done
> so in this case).
Actually you're avoiding responding to the argument by attacking the
speaker, which is good enough to qualify as "ad hominem". You'll note
every other message you send on this subject spends most of its time
telling the people who think the bug's severe that they're not gutsy or
smart enough to be running testing or unstable.
You've also written, in another message:
> Suck it up, or lobby the release manager to apply extra-strict criteria to
> XFree86.
>
> If you can't stand software still in development, go back to stable. In the
> meantime, stop being an armchair package maintainer. Not one person ever
> upgraded the severity of these bugs (and don't bother to now, it would be
> stupid since they're already in testing, and would just stall the next release
> -- with the FIX -- forever).
There are a few completely nonsensical claims in the above. For a
start, no extra-strict criteria are required at all: if you'd simply not
downgraded all the bugs against xfree86-common (#113878 etc) to normal,
there'd have been a grave bug open against xfree86-common since the 6th,
more than long enough to have stopped -7 getting into testing. Further,
the bug was initially filed at severity important, then grave, then
normal, and eventually even critical. You're the one that specifically
and deliberately downgraded these bugs, and trying to shift the blame to
everyone else because they didn't go out of their way to override your
decision about your packages (and subject themselves to the flamewar
that'd no doubt ensue) is, well, basically irresponsible. Finally,
assuming the bugs actually get fixed in -8, then they'll end up *closed*
so whatever severity they end up being won't matter even slightly,
and they won't stall the next release at all, let alone forever.
Surely you've got something more to offer than "suck it up"?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Attachment:
pgptl7nzsVxex.pgp
Description: PGP signature