From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11520 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2004 06:55:17 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Jul 2004 06:55:17 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BpiLH-000854-OX for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:55:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 20731 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jul 2004 06:55:11 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 11738 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2004 06:55:10 +0000 From: Tom Wesley To: Tommi Pirinen Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4106E96A.4040802@kolumbus.fi> References: <200407271254.50020.absinthe@gentoo.org> <200407271526.46575.absinthe@gentoo.org> <20040727210943.29584a5c@snowdrop.home> <200407271637.04014.absinthe@gentoo.org> <20040727223904.524c952f@snowdrop.home> <4106DC03.8080104@kolumbus.fi> <20040728000717.7a610845@snowdrop.home> <4106E96A.4040802@kolumbus.fi> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-YU24Ion4am0yusbCda57" Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:55:16 +0100 Message-Id: <1090997716.11795.14.camel@tom.tomaw.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 1.5.9.2 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:e0c4ec921101b4afa5f9efb3db39afe3 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug voting X-Archives-Salt: 7fa4a6ff-e517-43c0-aab3-d502133c098b X-Archives-Hash: 7f32f2d2f0bc8c2f0e60f71792c6def3 --=-YU24Ion4am0yusbCda57 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 02:46 +0300, Tommi Pirinen wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >=20 > >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 :) > > =20 > > > Well, there will unfortunately be some of those kind of users as well.=20 > But still, when bumping in to bugs like this all an end user sees is=20 > that there's an untouched bug that no one seems to care about, most=20 > probably the user won't know the brokedness of issue but will rather=20 > deduce ignorance or laziness of maintainers. The issue is problematic=20 > though, and I don't know a definitive answer which would work for all,=20 > but I'd still like a bit more response to bug reports from time to time.=20 > It's very frustrating to send bug reports when it seems that no one=20 > reads them. >=20 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 and not supported upstream, WONTFIX" is better in that case --=20 Tom Wesley --=-YU24Ion4am0yusbCda57 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBB03U0SQtKmb1pwMRAiWwAJ9g7/AIEVXmyJ//9Qif3P2lbLhNCQCdF34z PTBA2W1u5pV0ZGbU4NPZVYo= =Vr74 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-YU24Ion4am0yusbCda57--