Re: Bug#224742 acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#224742: Related to this issue...)
Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> > > ] 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?
It was the three lines I quoted. The argument goes that it is not
reasonable to ask the user to put an nonsense parameter which is
ignored, except that ifupdown will complain if it happens to be the
empty string.
> Open bugs are there to be addressed and closed.
A wishlist item is not a "bug", except in the BTS'es user interface.
> Enrico wants the bug addressed his way,
Of course he does. That is, by definition, why it is "his way"
> therefore he tries keeping it open until it is addressed his way.
Yes. That's the point of wishlist items - they document that wishes to
do things differently exist. Letting the report be closed would be a
way of publically saying "yes, I was wrong, and I am now convinced
that my request was unreasonable". Refusing to say so is in no way an
"attack" or "abuse". As long as he is not actually convinced, he would
be a liar and a hypocrite if he gave in.
> 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.
Yes. And when he replied, calmly and reasoned, that he did not find
that solution satisfactory, he was flamed and threatened for
disagreeing.
> 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?
"I will remove your access to the BTS bot" is a threat. Calling it
"abuse" and "attacks" that he does not agree with you are flames.
> 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?
Because that's the way "wontfix" is documented in the BTS documentation.
--
Henning Makholm "This imposes the restriction on any
procedure statement that the kind and type
of each actual parameter be compatible with the
kind and type of the corresponding formal parameter."
Reply to: