[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please don't non-bugs in changelog (again)

On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 05:01:14PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
>>> He wasn't slamming him, he pointed out a (common) mistake, and the solution.
>>> Don't treat every criticism as an ad hominem attack.

>> I guess it was just a rhetorical tool to introduce his own ad hominem
>> attack right afterwards ;)

> Well, not exactly. Complaining about closing bugs in changelog that
> should not have been closed in changelog is one thing. Complaining
> about core programs not beeing able to run because the package
> is messed up is another.

> But both do show one thing - frustration...

The difference is that the first is constructive criticism addressing a
concrete error on the developer's part, and the second is pointless
bitching.  If you aren't happy with the current QA of Qt, step in and
help.  Whether or not you do, we don't need to hear about it on this
mailing list, thanks.

> I do not believe that we will get KDE 3 into sarge if the maintainer
> of Qt is not willing to check that all of the examples provided
> with Qt both compile and run out-of-the-box before the new Qt packages are
> allowed to enter Sid. Is that too much to ask?

I'm sure if the examples are really valid tests of the library's
seaworthiness, the maintainer will be happy to accept patches to include
such checks in the build rules.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpKHRpUTgYFB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: