Re: New package doesn't fix the problem in the old version
Hi Ian,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
> > > All I was trying to do was to establish was whether you're being
> > > lazy/unhelpful or is there a policy which I've missed as, [...]
I admit that I should have allowed a third possibility here.
> There is a third possibility which is that the maintainer has made a
> judgement that this bug is not worth going to special effort to fix in
> the package. Policy does not need to be involved.
My point is exactly that: "who makes the call?".
It's not just about that package and that particular bug.
Maybe there should be a clear policy, which should apply to all releases
which are fully fledged (stable, testing, unstable[0]), on what is
deemed to be called a bug fix - IMHO uninstall (purge rather) a package
and install it again is not.
Where should individual judgement end and a clear policy/good
practice/standard way of doing things, start?
If we scale it (might be a bit far-fetched, but it really isn't IMHO)
we get to the point where personal judgement and opinion takes
precedence over everything else and is quite harmful[1].
> The suggestion that someone is or might be "lazy/unhelpful" is not
> appropriate.
It should have read: "lazy or unhelpful or ..." but because of there
being two "ORs" I shortened it. As mentioned above I think I should have
included a possibility of a third one. This however doesn't change the
fact that "lazy" or "unhelpful" are some of many human states of mind,
and therefore I don't see it as inappropriate to enumerate them as one
is perfectly entitled to them. Besides, I gave it only as an option and
yes, should have included more to choose from.
I didn't mean any harm by it.
[0] experimental excluded for obvious reasons
[1] http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=47 - while the blog post itself is
valuable, the links included in there show exactly what I have in mind
Ta,
--
Raf
Reply to: