2014/10/24 0:45 "David L. Craig" <dlc.usa@gmail.com>:
>
> On 14Oct23:0004-0400, Charles Kroeger wrote:
>
> > Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself?
>
> The code speaks when its execution reveals a need to
> run reportbug (or not). When we fail to run reportbug,
> we muzzle the code and possibly allow that bug to be
> part of the Jessie release. Hopefully that is nobody's
> idea of a good approach. Also, hopefully everybody is
> aware anybody can run reportbug, which simply emails the
> bug report to the BTS--no registration is necessary and
> formatting the report is quite painless.
Please understand that I do not argue with this.
If I could afford the hardware to replace my netbook that is no longer portable, or even if my tablet were not locked down and legally driver-hidden, I would be dual booting and probing for bugs in my spare time between classes and on the train.
Not that I really have any spare time.
> If systemd is the disaster many believe it to be,
> its defects should be manifesting as we test systemd
> behavior in as many configurations as possible and it
> should not be trivial to remediate those arising from
> poor software design.
This is the attitude that allowed MS-Windows to become a defacto standard, you know.
(Please don't tell me I have to unpack that comment. And don't complain that it's innuendo. We are among engineers are we not?)
> If you want systemd to not be the default, you need
> to prove to the Release Team it is unworthy, and the
> only way to do that is to document the defects in the
> BTS.
>
> Is that sufficiently clear?
What kind of a question is that?
> --
> <not cent from sell>
> May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly!
>
> Dave_Craig______________________________________________
> "So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
> You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
> Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe."
Heh.
> __--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_________________
--
Joel Rees
By the waters of Babylon ...