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 1R7M4G-0004F5-A1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:50:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59DE121C441; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:50:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AD321C065 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C811B4019 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:49:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -4.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.68 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.919, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U8VccJv8OCe8 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:49:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF541B4009 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:49:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R7M3R-0002Nm-U5 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:49:41 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:49:41 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:49:41 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:49:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <201109240002.56070.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <201109240110.43747.vapier@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 0a70b74 branch-master) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 3f64eedf3de3f617e3f4df949b2339ea 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. > if bugzilla had a way to temporarily lock comments, i would have used > that. In theory, that'd be a useful feature. In fact, probably not so much, as= =20 it simply encourages people to complain much more visibly, very possibly=20 in a PR-adverse way. You could see it was circular logic, but what if he had blogged about it=20 and that blog had hit the FLOSS media circuit? How many FLOSS reporters=20 would have seen that it was circular logic based on his blog and a locked= =20 (comment or visibility) bug? What about all their readers? Additionally, that bug was referenced in a number of changelog entries. =20 How useful is a link to a locked bug, for those looking for more info, as= =20 I, for instance did (as I often do with -rX bumps, since information=20 that's significant enough to cause a gentoo revision bump in the absence=20 of an upstream version bump is often significant enough for me as an=20 admin to want to be aware of)? Unfortunately, locking a bug to kill the whining is likely to have rather= =20 more negative effects than one might have anticipated. One would think=20 comment locking would be a logical enough extension to have been=20 implemented by now; perhaps this is why it hasn't been. (Full visibility= =20 locking is of course different, security bugs and all.) --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman