Bug#581179: oowriter 3.2 loads all linked images on first save (regression)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:15:46PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 04:42:37PM +0200, Bernard Jungen wrote:
> > Do you have a problem with the word "linked" in the report subject? Duh!
>
> No, I don't. Please stay on the topic and don't flame. *I* didn't.
What was your problem then?
> > > > I don't think a comparison 2.4.x -> 3.2.x is fair, really.
> > With what should I compare it then? Don't ever think I will install another
> > version of those huge packages just to have a "fair" comparison!
>
> Ah, and then better compare a years old release where lots of major and
> feature releases happened?
Big step in features, so what??? In this case, saving is "quick" in 2.4 and
not in 3.2. I don't have more feedback. Expecting all users to have new
versions installed regularly is just nuts.
> There is no way to add something on the bug page,
Bad luck then. And bad bts too.
> and if oyu usewd reportbug
> *would* have been presented them.
Mandatory use of reportbug is another untold rule that any user reporting
bugs should know through some "common sense" maybe? And should one also guess
that reportbug shows specific rules not present on the web pages?
> > Apparently, according to upstream bug reports, that's not the first time
> > reporters are annoyed with untold/contradictory/heavy reporting
>
> untold is untrue. And Neither is this here in any way conditradictionary
> or heavy rules. It's just common sense.
"conditradictionary", heavy and untold are all true.
For instance, there's no mention of special rules on the web site.
As for common sense, which one? Yours? A maintainer's? Are users supposed to
have the "common sense" to know where to report the bugs? "Common sense"
would dictate to follow the "Don't file bugs upstream" bit on the generic
page, wouldn't it?
As for the rule about the choice between oo.org and debian bts, expecting users
to download and install the oo.org version before deciding is nuts.
> > rules/processes...
> >
> > > (I can just forward it wwith cut'n'paste, that won't be as much as efficient)
> >
> > Yeah do it then instead of bitching about it, that will be more efficient.
>
> Just that it would make http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=openoffice.org even more longer and blurry than it's right now
Long and blurry? Why? I don't think so.
> - and If upstream
> doesn't handle it it will just stay there for infinity - see for how long
> some of the Forwarded bugs are there..
That would be their problem, not yours. You're just a maintainer, aren't you?
> Besides that, you are the best to talk to upstream. Instead of me
> who doesn't know what you want by 100%, should I communicate with them? Or
> is it better you did and can tell them what you want (playing proxy
> in such things is combersome and looses momentum and sometimes even infos)
On the plus side, maintainers have more credibility and can confirm that the
bug is indeed probably not distro-specific.
And it's not as if I would refuse to participate if they need more explanations,
is it?
Cheers.
Reply to: