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 ) 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 ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:11:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so4550641yxk.40 for ; 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: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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: References: <201109240002.56070.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <201109240110.43747.vapier@gentoo.org> From: Mike Frysinger Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:10:53 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jY85vbmcsNR7S9S4UJRPvTmF3RI Message-ID: 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