Re: Please don't non-bugs in changelog (again)
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 02:36:42PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 01:46:28PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:28:25AM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> > > > No changes made to the package, so these bugs should *not* be closed in
> > > > the changelog. Instead, send a mail to bugnumber-close@bugs.d.o or
> > > > bugnumber-done@b.d.o noting why you're closing the bug.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that you have to slam him for having a bit screwed up
> > > changelog
> >
> > 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...
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?
- Adam
Reply to: