Re: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:13:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:30:58AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:03:39AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:31:40PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a maintainer, but I did have info that bug had not been
> > > > dealt with, so I reopened the bug with that info.
> > >
> > > I see that you sent info, but only to the BTS control bot, which prevents it
> > > from being reflected in the bug log.
> > >
> > > I suggest you re-send it.
> >
> > Btw, as for this BTS ping-pong game, Max asked that you file separate bugs
> > instead of reopening this one. This doesn't sound like an unreasonable
> > request, so why not just do that?
>
> Robert, i don't really see the reason why this should be done.
But the maintainer does, and for a change this request doesn't conflict with
the Social Contract. Why are we discussing on whether we prefer one bug or
multiple bugs when we have actual SC violations right now that need fixing?
> > It's probably helpful to the maintainers to have a separate bug for each
> > violation. I can imagine that working with one [1] huge report while trying
> > to actually fix stuff can be a PITA.
>
> Well, i suppose that callign the reporter stupid, as max did is not
> helpful also. Nor threatenenign me to be blacklisted from the BTS. Max
> should really calm down, i know he is not agreeing with the firmware
> split, but this doesn't allow him to be impolite and threatening.
IIRC he was threatening Markus, not you. Anyway, I suppose by now he realises
that was completely inappropiate, and actually counterproductive. Now can we
please get this over with?
--
Robert Millan
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
Reply to: