Re: fixed, I think
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:29:15PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote:
> >> "SMR" == Steve M Robbins <steven.robbins@videotron.ca> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:48:27PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote:
> >> >> "SMR" == Steve M Robbins <steven.robbins@videotron.ca> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Sawfish don't like gdk-pixbuf :-)
>
> > Yes, I gathered that much from the changelog.
> > I was hoping for a bit more content. Brevity is not a virtue.
>
> Then you should read more entries in the changelog :
>
> sawfish (1.0.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * Build without gdk-pixbuf (Closes: #120982, #121280, #122356)
>
> [...]
>
> sawfish (1.0.1-3) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * Compiled against gdk-pixbuf and add build-depends (Closes: #118306, #85662)
Yes, I can read. In fact, I had read the latter changelog entry
last week when I was bedevilled by vanishing windows. Sadly,
I cannot read minds.
> I can't say more.
That is unfortunate, since the log for 1.0.1-3 doesn't say anything
about *why* you made the change. Yes, I can have a look at the BTS
--- *if* I am online. But it wouldn't kill you to add a sentence
explaining the change right in the changelog.
The 1.0.1-5 change log is even less informative. How did you deduce
that removing gdk-pixbuf solves the problem? Did you read the code
and discover the bug? Did you receive information from somewhere
(upstream? sawfish mailing list? gdk-pixbuf mailing list? GNOME's
Bugzilla?) suggesting that gdk-pixbuf causes a problem with sawfish?
Or did you blindly revert the change to see if the problem went away?
If the latter, how did you test that the problem went away? You
closed the three bugs in the upload: did those three bug submitters
test the new version and report back prior to the upload? Did you
yourself test all the applications mentioned in the reports?
In the lack of any information, how is one expected to resolve these
questions? Remember: the changelog is not for you the maintainer, the
changelog is for the rest of us. *Why* a change is made is as
important as *what* the change was, especially while hunting bugs.
Consider the next time someone submits a wishlist bug asking that
sawfish be built with gdk-pixbuf. If you no longer maintain sawfish,
the new maintainer will have all the same questions I just did: on
what shall they base the decision to link gdk-pixbuf or not?
> > If we knew a bit more about the issues, for example, we might
> > remember it the next time we are debugging a gdk-pixbuf-using
> > program. Or, it might give a hint to those for whom this upload
> > did not completely fix the problem (c.f. the other reply to my
> > message).
>
> For me this work.
I cannot parse these four words. Would you care to elucidate?
-Steve
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
Reply to: