Re: What to do with unresponsive maintainers?
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 06:50:25PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 05:34:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> On the other hand a bug count on your package will be seen as badly
> >> maintained during the NM process. So I can see why someone wants to
> >> close all bugs he can do nothing about or not even reproduce.
> > For the record: I have seen no single indication that this is true. If
> > you really think that your statement is true, please show some
> > references to that effect. Simply posing something without arguments
> My xlife package having bugs and having been NMUed (on my request) was
> used against me. So I have first hand knowledge of it.
1) Nobody was talking about NMU's before you mention them now
2) This is contradicted by the information you yourself gave me
3) You still didn't supply any reasonable indication that your original
statement is true. You only claimed it again, just naming a package
doesn't change that.
I don't think continuing this thread has much use, I won't be replying
unless there really is something new. I originally only replied to you
because I think it'd be bad if people would close bugs just because they
read somewhere on a mailinglist that it'd other negatively impact their
Note the 'just because', of course, closing bugs with good reason is
never bad, this reason is just not a good one.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)