Re: On maintainers not responding to bugs
#include <hallo.h>
* Loïc Minier [Tue, Feb 27 2007, 06:51:05PM]:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > I already warned you about this privately in december; here's another
> > "Warn"? You feel the need to warn me? Does bringing me to STFU make you
> > happy or so?
>
> No; I warned you not to put everybody in the same bag in the same
> pointless discussion that was happening back then about maintainer not
> applying patches timely.
> The proposals you made in this thread do not match the attitude you
> follow yourself...
"put everybody into the same bag"? Jeez, what else are you interpreting
into it?
> > Nice game. Pointless attempt to create a "who wants to throw the first
> > stone" situation. Looking at your dirty clothes:
> > 401095 359033 371694 372127 372611 373277 375904 403194
> > What about them? Now don't tell me "It is okay the package was adopted
> > from other bad maintainer". I adopted some bug hives too.
>
> You could _at least_ search for good examples. First, most of the bugs
That is what BTS reported on a quick request. But it seems like you
maintain only few simple packages. As you can imagine it is hard to look
for "optimal" examples there.
> your took are from Galeon which is RFAed /and/ obsolete; second, these
> bugs do not have patches; third, I AM NOT THE ONE WHO ARGUES THAT
> MAINTAINERS SHOULD RESPOND TO ALL BUGS, remember: it's you.
Yeah. Keep constructing bogus arguments.
> You're the guy who's been complaining about "the maintainer is doing
> uploads but only for bugs that have RC priority or important" and
> proposed the "solution shall be setting some RC priority to all bugs
> then".
Oh boy. Now I see what you are on. Please tune your irony detector and
guess why I added a comment after the last statement.
> Back in december, you were also pestering about "maintainers that
> prefer to let such bug reports rot instead of tagging them", and back
> then I already sent you another list of bug reports to which you did
> not bother replying to for MONTHS, even bugs _I_ filed, _with patches_.
>
> And the worse is that you are upstream for most of the bugs I quoted.
That is worse? Have you ever considered that I get more bug reports
because I am upstream and the Debian BTS catches both, upstream and
Debian related problems?
Apparently not. You prefer to play with simple packages and only
packagement problems where you can come and close lots of bugs with
simple changes. At least this is my impression looking at the attitude
shining through.
> So, yes, please, SFTU; your position is so naive that it is pointless;
> instead of complaining about what busy maintainers could do, do it
> yourself, or find more people to do it. Instead of reading your
> bitching about Debian bug handling, I spent some hours yesterday
> backporting the 10 bugs with the most duplicate reports from GNOME
> upstream (check:
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2007/02/threads.html>), I
> bet this was at least 1200% more useful than your arguing.
1200%? ROTFL. Yes, master, now you are my hero after making 10 trivial
fixes.
Eduard.
--
<Y_Plentyn> hmhm... hier ist bestimmt niemand, dem die begriffe RED und ns im
kontext netzwerke was sagen, oder?
<Gem`Xevy> Y_Plentyn: rot kennt jeder, und ueber NS redet man nicht mehr...
Reply to: