On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 11:19 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:37:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Where did you discuss this mass filing of (useless) bugs before you > > > submitted them? > > The previous discussions has lead nowhere. No use in discussing it yet > again, instead it's time to act! Not really. Actions that fail to address the problem and promote a method that both papers over the cracks and has had a chance to find support and failed, are (in my estimation) a waste of time. Others would appear to agree that these bugs are useless. I don't see why any of these bug reports should not be automatically tagged "wontfix" and closed without further comment. > > > > In particular, these bugs are *contrary* to the developing consensus in the > > thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/05/msg00381.html ff. > > There where no consensus, In fact, there was a resistance against the method that you have decided to impose unilaterally. Where there was not a definite consensus was on which of the alternative methods was better. > since you where all just discussing overengineered > solutions for solving the problem and all pointing out bugs in eachothers > suggestions. Throwing those ideas away is not a solution either. > Using exim4 | mail-transport-agent is the most > straight-forward solution and will require minimal changes. In your opinion - others disagreed at the time and appear to disagree currently too. Mass bug filings need consensus - you cannot impose an arbitrary time limit and go ahead anyway. This isn't a release goal, it isn't relevant to the Lenny release, it is just wasting time that could be better spent on RC bugs. > When (or even if) the default mta changes, we can easily introduce the > default-mta then (and maybe people would even have come up with a bug-free > overengineered solution by then). Debian does tend to go for the more robust solution - it does take more time to develop but whether you like it or not, you cannot impose a less rigorous solution unilaterally. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part