Re: On maintainers not responding to bugs
#include <hallo.h>
* Pierre Habouzit [Mon, Feb 26 2007, 02:32:28AM]:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:27:29PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:12:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> writes:
> > >
> > > > You and others are most welcome to take a stab at the 1000 open bugs
> > > > against the official kdepackages.
> > >
> > > "You and others" cannot substitute for a response *from the package
> > > maintainer* acknowledging (or otherwise) the bug report. That's the
> > > criterion being discussed here: not a resolution for the reported bug,
> > > but rather a first response from the package maintainer to the bug
> > > report, to acknowledge that it has not been ignored.
> >
> > And what he's telling you, and what I'm telling you, is that it's a
> > completely crap criterion for those of us who deal with massive packagesets
> > like KDE. Simply replying to a bug won't get it fixed any sooner or
> > decrease the impact it has on the user. In addition, it distracts us from
> > doing what is potentially far more productive work.
>
> bleh, you're totally wrong ! That *is* an excellent criterium, if you
> need proof, look at the libc: too many unanswered bugs, it should not be
> in testing. End of story.
They have good teachers. My last upstream report was closed after
waiting for months with "provide the data, issue is through, closing the
bug". The fact the problem does still exist and that this feature has
been working in previous versions have been just "forgotten". Close the
bug and/or let's pretend there is no problem.
And now wonder why there are many unofficial packages, forks, et cetera.
People are not happy? What a surprise.
Eduard.
--
<LGS> Halloechen, ihr Spinner, so frueh auf?
<nusse> nein, wir schlafen alle im kollektiv
<knorke> mein alkoven ist kaputt
<teq> alkohol kaputt?
Reply to: