From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-47893-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1R7MOt-000897-DO
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:11:51 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DD4521C1B7;
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:11:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com (mail-yx0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F8321C1AB
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:11:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so4550641yxk.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=fik4AZBvu+Xu5f9E6oYhTmY0oF+FzGxTYvFSk8r1eSc=;
b=BIPm/1NX+UO6GmF4/AiwhVjH5kn26VkgwXhUloVUrOHNrYxQUeK0rLx069DB603a1q
PtBBX9P3BTsT8Pys2nCOzx1QRmCCtVuh5ELscfVBe/6QP0q6nQXdnSVzY+6biMOn0TCb
pCX9ut+N1HhBg30kb+JsGegwacYXthzikJc+w=
Received: by 10.42.148.70 with SMTP id q6mr5314480icv.163.1316848273304; Sat,
24 Sep 2011 00:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: vapierfilter@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.229.6 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <pan.2011.09.24.06.49.31@cox.net>
References: <j5iukv$v5h$1@dough.gmane.org> <201109240002.56070.dilfridge@gentoo.org>
<201109240110.43747.vapier@gentoo.org> <pan.2011.09.24.06.49.31@cox.net>
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:10:53 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: jY85vbmcsNR7S9S4UJRPvTmF3RI
Message-ID: <CAJaTeTosSC5NpuGgaVD0umOMg-yvvF3nMh_NvJN4pdP+bg0ysQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 9a4ebcc60dccdf54f5c18e62e637987b
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:49, Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 01:10:43 -0400 as excerpted:
>> it was purely to keep people from continuing to whine with circular
>> logic. =A0if bugzilla had a way to temporarily lock comments, i would
>> have used that.
>
> In theory, that'd be a useful feature. =A0In fact, probably not so much, =
as
> it simply encourages people to complain much more visibly, very possibly
> in a PR-adverse way.
i couldn't care less. if people are swayed by random rants rather
than reality, then i'm not going to waste time on them.
> You could see it was circular logic, but what if he had blogged about it
> and that blog had hit the FLOSS media circuit? =A0How many FLOSS reporter=
s
> would have seen that it was circular logic based on his blog and a locked
> (comment or visibility) bug? =A0What about all their readers?
clearly you don't know my opinion of blogs in general.
> Additionally, that bug was referenced in a number of changelog entries.
> How useful is a link to a locked bug, for those looking for more info, as
> I, for instance did (as I often do with -rX bumps, since information
> that's significant enough to cause a gentoo revision bump in the absence
> of an upstream version bump is often significant enough for me as an
> admin to want to be aware of)?
then you'd simply wait until it got unlocked. or ask a dev.
> Unfortunately, locking a bug to kill the whining is likely to have rather
> more negative effects than one might have anticipated. =A0One would think
> comment locking would be a logical enough extension to have been
> implemented by now; perhaps this is why it hasn't been. =A0(Full visibili=
ty
> locking is of course different, security bugs and all.)
i don't see any negative effects so far.
-mike