Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug voting

[Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1673 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 02:46 +0300, Tommi Pirinen wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
> >I've been flamed by a couple of users for not adding a broken gtk-2 file
> >selector patch to gvim. There're several "please add my horridly broken
> >ebuild for this lame package which is full of bugs and unmaintained
> >upstream" bugs which I'd love to close as WONTFIX, but past experience
> >has shown that it's generally easiest to just leave them alone. Closing
> >a bug as WONTFIX really upsets some people, no matter what the reason.
> >If I ignore a bug instead, chances are no-one's gonna know that I'm the
> >person to flame :)
> >  
> >
> Well, there will unfortunately be some of those kind of users as well. 
> But still, when bumping in to bugs like this all an end user sees is 
> that there's an untouched bug that no one seems to care about, most 
> probably the user won't know the brokedness of issue but will rather 
> deduce ignorance or laziness of maintainers. The issue is problematic 
> though, and I don't know a definitive answer which would work for all, 
> but I'd still like a bit more response to bug reports from time to time. 
> It's very frustrating to send bug reports when it seems that no one 
> reads them.
> 

I agree with this point.  If a dev is scared (/me uses word gently in
case my vision of an angry Scott as Ciaran is true) of marking bugs they
wont fix as WONTFIX then they just appear untouched and obviously adds a
huge amount of apparently open bugs.

Surely a quick comment to say "Patch breaks <something> and not
supported upstream, WONTFIX" is better in that case

-- 
Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]