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

Re: Bug#224742 acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#224742: Related to this issue...)

On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 11:24:07AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> > It got more blunt when the reply to that was:
> > ] That'd be stupid: as "test-missing-cable no" would be nonsense, it's
> > ] crazy to ask the user to put "yes" there.  I've solved removing the '-'
> > ] after "test" on all directives, instead, which makes more sense.
> So you think it is OK to be "blunt" whan somebody disagrees with you,
> and gives coherent technical arguments for disagreeing? 

Huh? Where's the "coherent technical argument" in the above?

> > > > I'm happy to do the same thing for any other maintainer who is being
> > > > attacked by someone who's trying to use the BTS reopen command to force
> > > > a maintainer to do things against their better judgement.
> > > In which way is a wishlist item an "attack"? 
> > Filing a bug isn't an attack. Repeatedly reopening a bug is.
> In which way is reopening a bug that was apparently closed in error an
> "attack"?

In what way is repeatedly following the documented protocol of sending
a SYN packet to start a TCP connection to a system that offers a public
TCP service an attack?

> You forgot to answer: In which way could reopening a bug conceivably
> be a means to "force" the maintainer to do anything? Where and what is
> the "force" you're thinking about.

Open bugs are there to be addressed and closed. Enrico wants the bug
addressed his way, therefore he tries keeping it open until it is
addressed his way.

> > If you have some feature you want added that the package maintainer
> > doesn't think is desirable, you either persuade him/her to change his/her
> > mind, learn to live without it, or if it's important enough you take
> > the issue up with the technical committee.
> Enricon tried the first option and got flames and threats in response.

Uh, he tried the first option and got:

On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> ] > test-missing-cable really needs no arguments.  However, ifupdown chokes
> ] > on it:
> ] Yes, that's correct. Use:
> ] 	test-missing-cable yes
> ] instead.

Are you looking at a different bug?

> > > So - proof by authority?
> > It was a serious question:
> I know a rhetorical question when I see one.

Apparently not.

> > I obviously have more experience here than Enrico; what exactly
> > makes you think he's right and I'm not?
> The transactions of the wishlist item were, at that time, publically
> accessible in the BTS; I had the opportunity to judge the matter
> according to what was said and done rather than just base guessework
> on the identities involved in the case.

Well then, why do you think he got threats and flames when what he
actually got was a simple alternative that works right now with no
changes needed?

But more importantly, why do you think Enrico's judgement of what
"wontfix" is for is correct and mine is wrong, considering that isn't
the subject of the bug at all?


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: pgpQpcK_jpwOH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: