[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#666104: Bug#666104: xfce4 should not start ssh-agent if does not exist
Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:36:29 +0200
Lionel Le Folgoc <lionel at lefolgoc.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 11:41:31AM +0400, Alexander Gerasiov wrote:
> > Package: xfce4-utils
> > Severity: normal
> > reopen 659921
> > tag 659921 +patch
> > severity 659921 minor
> > thanks
> > Salut, Yves-Alexis.
> > I was summoned to this thread by bugreporter. You was not really
> > correct with this bug, may be because of some misunderstanding and
> > some errors in bugreport itself. As a result, this produce some
> > personal offence againt the project. So excuse me my intervention,
> > I just was to calm down both of you.
> Really... I guess there was only one person who wasn't calm:
> >> Unless you offer (or suggest someone else) to deal with it in
> >> a *constructive manner*, I am going to make a case of the issue by
> >> raising it with other primary developers of the Debian community on
> >> mailing lists and on my public blog in the next few weeks.
Nope, you're wrong.
User came with bugreport. He may be wrong, he may incorrectly
understand what really happens with this bulk of software. But you
present not only yourself, but Debian community and Debian project.
Yes, you are not official. But anyone outside feels this so.
So you should be twice more polite, when you are speaking with users as
DD or even maintainer. You should try to be smarter and do not escalate
> All that for a harmless line in the log that can be safely ignored?
Well. Such harmless lines lead to strange, difficult to diagnose
problems. Or even security issues. So it's better to correctly handle
> Disagreements between maintainers and bug reporters are not uncommon,
> but threatening the maintainer for such a trivial issue isn't, imho,
> the best way to have a nice time (and definitely not the way to fix
> the bug).
> FWIW, this code has been removed upstream in the upcoming 4.10
Great. But there were nothing about that in Yves-Alexis's replies.
> And I'm sorry, but I think I agree with Yves-Alexis, I'm not sure that
> it's worth adding another patch for a tiny issue (unless I'm mistaken
> and I misunderstood the consequences).
As a maintainer, I don't understand your position. And I think it's
emotionally motivated. But that's up to you.
Anyway this but it present in the currect package, so you should not
close is, but tag as wont-fix instead.
Alexander GQ Gerasiov
e-mail: gq at cs.msu.su Jabber: gq at jabber.ru
Homepage: http://gq.net.ru ICQ: 7272757
PGP fingerprint: 04B5 9D90 DF7C C2AB CD49 BAEA CA87 E9E8 2AAC 33F1