Re: the new style "mass tirage" of bugs
On to, 2008-02-21 at 22:34 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> But the same it true the other way around. Imho it's also not ok to
> insult DDs publically in the way jidanni did. We are all volunteers
> after all and ranting on a public mailing list doesn't help to improve
> the motivation (and doesn't magically fix the bugs).
Two wrongs don't make a right, of course. (Eveyone was just waiting for
someone to say that, weren't they? It's my turn to type out platitudes
today.)
The most productive way of dealing with misbehavior, I find, is to point
it out once, politely, and then not escalate the issue by getting into
an argument about it.
Jidanni reports very large numbers of bugs, which are often badly
researched, and sometimes quite ludicrous: complaints about spaces at
the ends of lines are not worth the effort of reporting. Sometimes he
does report valid problems. Depending on whom you ask, he's either a net
positive or a net negative, but not very far from a neutral value either
way. On the whole, I wouldn't say he's abusive, just mildly irritating.
FWIW, I think pretty much the same can be said about Josselin.
Until either gets much more abusive, let's concentrate on the important
parts of their messages: on the one hand, the mass triage style of bug
handling can certainly be a bit annoying for users, and on the other
hand complaining about how Debian development is done is best done
constructively, lest flaming happens.
Personally, I agree with what has already been said in this thread with
regards to mass bug triage: it is currently unfortunately required, but
would ideally never be needed. Until we get to a state where every
package has zero bugs and the horde of a thousand package maintainers
descends on every new bug reported, we will sometimes just have a
situation where a big package gets a large backlog of bugs. And
sometimes the only reasonable way of dealing with that is by the mass
bug triage currently being done by Lior. That's better than letting bugs
rot, or by closing them by blindly assuming bugs are closed by new
upstream versions.
Reply to: