Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes:
> In particular, the Maintainer knows all the bugs he's set at the
> "important" severity are either hard to fix or would change things in
> such a significant way that would break a lot of things right now.
>
> So the Maintainer actually never bothers to read any bugs in the
> "important" block, and skips past it.
>
> If this bug were in that block, it would be a long time before it got
> fixed.
>
>
> On the other hand, the Maintainer is actively going through the normal
> and minor bugs and mentally filing them in his head to be worked on over
> the next year or so. So if this bug is in that block, it's got a high
> chance of being fixed.
This is your way to handle bug, not mine. I really think severity
should reflect impact on users as described in the policy, and not be
used as a complementary maintainer parameter, as the "priority" one in
bugzilla. Perhaps something is missing here.
But that is not the real problem.
I bumped the severity for two reasons :
1) this bug is causing many FTBFS, so is really nasty
2) i should have used severity important when i first filed the
bugreport, but made a mistake
This was not an intent to artificially bump the severity to get more
attention, even if it was easy to misunderstand.
> The only reason it hasn't been applied to that branch yet is because I
> haven't got to it yet. There's ~400 bugs in that list, this one isn't
> any more important than a lot of those!
I can perfectly understand this and i agree this bug is no more
important than many other.
The only reason why i was rude is because of this short reply :
<quote>
Debian GNU/Hurd is not a released architecture.
</quote>
I feel this reply like a lack of respect for an architecture you
dislike while it has been officially accepted as Debian devel-arch,
integrated in Debian repository, BTS, and other tools and webpages.
Many maintainers only listen to their own taste and we have to fight
hard to make them realize they should be working for users instead of
only their own desires.
I don't know you personnally, so with this kind of reply, this was my
understanding. Many maintainers just give such words and then neglect
the bug, how could i know the bug is not going to be sent to trashcan ?
> I have a right to work without that intimidation, therefore I declined
> to fix the bug or enter any further discourse about it.
As i have a right to work without having my work being misconsidered
because it is not the choice everyone selected.
But in my case i cannot decline anything, i can only cry.
> Yes, either this or a very similar patch will be applied.
Thanks.
> In the 1.13 series, sometime over the next year.
Then we'll have to maintain an unofficial flavor of this pkg, what i
wanted to avoid because is it would be quite a burden, but i see no
alternate solution.
Thanks for your help.
--
Marc Dequènes (Duck)
Attachment:
pgpRAB8hPakpC.pgp
Description: PGP signature