From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HwlkZ-00011v-LS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:12:04 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l58L9otw003416; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 21:09:50 GMT Received: from aa014msr.fastwebnet.it (aa014msr.fastwebnet.it [85.18.95.74]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l58L5Bd6030638 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 21:05:11 GMT Received: from [37.1.3.90] (37.1.3.90) by aa014msr.fastwebnet.it (7.3.118.6) (authenticated as cyclopia) id 466579D6003326DF for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 23:05:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4669E562.5040905@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:25:22 +0000 From: "b.n." User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070520) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid References: <200706062034.23922.davividal@siscompar.com.br> <20070607000119.GF2575@nibiru.local> <46689309.5060903@gmail.com> <20070608140454.GD765@nibiru.local> In-Reply-To: <20070608140454.GD765@nibiru.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8c3880e0-18fb-43d3-b5a7-ec198ad262d6 X-Archives-Hash: a598fbefc28675bc1d904dc71ab4e8db Enrico Weigelt ha scritto: > I'd prefer telling people what I (personally) believe it's good/right > and give them the chance to either take or leave it. Both decisions > will have their consequences, but nobody can tell which one is > objectively better - evryhing's subjective. [...] > I don't feel to defend anything against anyone. At least not in such > technically debates. I've got my arguments and solutions. Feel free to > either follow them or leave them alone. You also can put your own > against, and so we can discuss. Your problem is: you live in the delusion that if you write thing X, people immediately understand X and either refuse it or accept it. People do not work that way (no, you neither). If you write thing X and X is not blatantly, utmostly trivially obvious (and even in this case) most people will NOT understand it. For example, I am explaining to you this concept right now, and I see you have an hard time grasping it. You see? So you have to explain it again and to "defend" your opinion in the sense that you have to nail into the head of the relevant people that you're right (or nail into yours that you are wrong). If the world was like you think it is, it would probably be better. But not being so, it's not surprising that you feel "refused" by it. > Okay, this is really getting in philophical topics liek god vs. satan ;-o > (--> getting too offtopic ?) Yeah, but I like it. :) > In case of the mozilla-launcher bug, I did explain it. And I found an > quick and dirty solution for me. Not a clean one, but it's a start. > We had several better ideas in this thread, which should be discussed. > But as long as the bug is marked invalid, I have to assume that debate > is unwelcomed and so won't invest much more resouces in that. No, you have to assume that people upstream have not understood why the bug is valid. The conversation was: enrico: hey, there's bug X in package Y when doing Z bugwrangler: (giving just a fast glance) hmmm, doesn't look like a bug. maybe better avoiding wasting time. enrico: oh, don't you think it's a bug? F**K YOU MORONS ME IS WASTING TIME. Now the RIGHT reply would be: enrico: ehm, no. you misunderstand me, probably. it's REALLY a bug for those reasons. i'll try to be even more clear now...blah,blah...you see it now? b.w.: still not convinced enrico: (repeat until convince someone or you are forced to give up) > Well, of course we're all conditioned on defending if we're attacked, > probably generic. But I really don't see I anytings to gain here > than maybe my honour in such an unimportant place like bgo. That's where you are wrong, and that's why I still insist answering to this thread. If you insist: - you get all the community aware that there is a bug - you could get the bug fixed - Gentoo is better That's why it is important. Frankly I don't care that much about your honour :), but I care about Gentoo. It's my OS, I want it better. > Maybe it's my fault if some people doesn't understand my bug reports. > But it's their fault if they declare my reports as invalid w/o asking > back, ranting against me, try to convince me to go away, etc If they don't understand them, how can it be their fault? Garbage input --> garbage output. > I had to learn that bgo is clearly not the place for an open and > cooperative working on problems, if you're not an Gentoo cleric. Too strange I am not a "Gentoo cleric" and I had exactly the opposite experience. > So I've got my conclusions and work alone. Maybe some people come > around and say, against Gentoo, but that's not true - just beyond > Gentoo. (If they really believe in that, well I'll leave them with > that - I'm not the one who wants to have anything to do with such > religious stuff) This, I agree. But working alone helps no one apart from you and a bunch of guys that agree with you. Plus, sometimes you could actually be wrong. Discussing your patches with people could always be helpful. m. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list