[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Alexander Skwar]

Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:

> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180935
> 
> Again the old philosophy "what I don't understand is invalid".
> 
> Obviously my contributions are unwelcomed, so I closed the bug.

Yep, Jakub often has a quite jerky "tone". So do a lot of the
Gentoo devs.

Alexander Skwar

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Davi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1283 bytes --]

Em Quarta 06 Junho 2007 20:10, Enrico Weigelt escreveu:
> * Hemmann, Volker Armin <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > > Isn't it exactly the job of the bugwranglers to delegate
> > > bugs to the responsible persons ?
> >
> > and bug wranglers are just humans. And humans a) are not perfect
> > and b) sometimes make errors.
>
> Ok, no problem. But is that the fault of the reporter ? Obviously not.
> If a bug gets to the wrong dev, he simply kicks it back or directly
> to the right person. Trivial.

Yes. This is trivial! =D

Gentoo's Project needs more people to help in develop, docs and bugs... =)

IF this (bugs) are, as YOU said, trivial, go on... Help them... Teach them
 the right way! =)

The community would apreciate... =)

Sorry the *very* poor english...


--
Davi Vidal
davividal@siscompar.com.br
davividal@gmail.com
--
"Religion, ideology, resources, land,
spite, love or "just because"...
No matter how pathetic the reason,
it's enough to start a war. "
--------------------------------------------------------
Por favor não faça top-posting, coloque a sua resposta abaixo desta linha.
Please don't do top-posting, put your reply below the following line.
--------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Davi <davividal@siscompar.com.br> wrote:

Hi,

> Gentoo's Project needs more people to help in develop, 
> docs and bugs... =)

Well, for me, it seemed quite different - new people are 
unwelcomed, especially if the come with new/different ideas.
 
> IF this (bugs) are, as YOU said, trivial, go on... Help them... 

I did. But I had to learn that this is totally unwelcomed.

> Teach them the right way! =)

No, I'm not the one who teaches anyody. I go my way, if you
like it, feel free to follow me, if you don't like it, 
go you own but leave me alone. 

I've shown several problems and concepts, but I was immediately
attacked. So the message is clear: I'm unwelcomed. 

I don't see any reason for wasting more time on those folks. 
That's the reason why I usually don't post on -dev anymore. 
I still post on -users for those people who still might be 
interested. 


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[»Q«]

In <news:20070606220352.GB2575@nibiru.local>,
Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:

> The bug, so the whole issue (not my patch), was declared invalid.
> This means nothing else that "there is no problem".

No, it doesn't mean you don't have a problem.  It means you don't have a
problem that Gentoo developers should solve for you.

-- 
»Q«

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Alexander Skwar]

Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:

> Sometimes it seems, certain wranglers are for killing bugs of specific
> persons ;-O

I don't know. I think it's just Jakub. He's REALLY quick to kill a
bug, especially if he doesn't completely understand what the bug is
about. This also pisses me off from time to time...

Alexander Skwar

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Alexander Skwar]

Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> * Hemmann, Volker Armin <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:

>> well, Jakub is very fast closing bugs - and sometimes he closes
>> them too fast... this is nothing new - and arguing with him in a
>> civil manner usually solves that.
> 
> I'm some bit confused that the wranglers should do such decisions
> at all (if they're not also involved in the affected package).

If you disagree with his decision, simply reopen the bug. And do
so over and over again. 

Alexander Skwar

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[b.n.]

Enrico Weigelt ha scritto:

> No, I'm not the one who teaches anyody. I go my way, if you
> like it, feel free to follow me, if you don't like it, 
> go you own but leave me alone. 

So don't expect anyone to like you, if you don't teach anyone what do
you think and...-->

> I've shown several problems and concepts, but I was immediately
> attacked. So the message is clear: I'm unwelcomed. 

--> you don't defend it seriously.
Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked?
Insist. Prove them they are wrong. Do your best, politely but firmly.
Accept the fact you are discussing -people maybe attack you simply
because they don't understand at first time and, guess what, this could
be also your fault, not only them.

If you don't insist and make no further attemps, how do you expect
people understand? Do you think we can read your mind?

> I don't see any reason for wasting more time on those folks. 
> That's the reason why I usually don't post on -dev anymore. 
> I still post on -users for those people who still might be 
> interested. 

If that's your attitude, you can even unsubscribe users, and leave us
alone.
I hope you change your mind (I doubt it but...)

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Alexander Skwar]

b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:

> Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked?
> Insist. Prove them they are wrong.

Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?

Alexander Skwar

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[b.n.]

Alexander Skwar ha scritto:
> b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked?
>> Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
> 
> Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?

Don't think so. I understand from this thread he's a tough guy, but if
logic and other people support show you're right, is there little he can
be but agree (or behave as a complete jerk and ignore facts, his choice
- but it is not an excuse for not trying).

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked?
> > Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
>
> Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?
>

I did.

And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the bug as a 
real bug...
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Enrico Weigelt]

* b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

> > No, I'm not the one who teaches anyody. I go my way, if you
> > like it, feel free to follow me, if you don't like it, 
> > go you own but leave me alone. 
> 
> So don't expect anyone to like you, if you don't teach anyone what do
> you think and...-->

hmmpf, you probably misunderstood :(

Teaching somebody (IMHO) is too much about being right and
intelligent the one to be teached being wrong and unintelligent.
It's about pulling your oppinion into someone else.
I don't like that (although I still do it too much ;-o).

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.

Okay, this is really getting in philophical topics liek god vs. satan ;-o
(--> getting too offtopic ?)

> > I've shown several problems and concepts, but I was immediately
> > attacked. So the message is clear: I'm unwelcomed. 
> 
> --> you don't defend it seriously.

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. 

> Really. If you think there's a problem, explain 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.

> You get attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. Do your best, 
> politely but firmly.

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.

> Accept the fact you are discussing -people maybe attack you simply
> because they don't understand at first time and, guess what, this 
> could be also your fault, not only them.

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

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.
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)
 
> > I don't see any reason for wasting more time on those folks. 
> > That's the reason why I usually don't post on -dev anymore. 
> > I still post on -users for those people who still might be 
> > interested. 
> 
> If that's your attitude, you can even unsubscribe users, and 
> leave us alone.

The users list ist neither the devs list (where I also dont waste 
my time anymore), nor bgo. Maybe here still are some people who're 
interested in my contribution. But if a large majority tells me 
to stop and go away, I'll do so.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[»Q«]

In <news:200706081440.37381.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de>,
"Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:

> On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get
> > > attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
> >
> > Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?
> 
> I did.
> 
> And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the
> bug as a real bug...

I've seen that happen a few times.  IME, jakub is usually right, but
whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn.  It's possible to
wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it,
instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices.

-- 
»Q«

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[b.n.]

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote:
> In <news:200706081440.37381.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de>,
>
> "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > > b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get
> > > > attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
> > >
> > > Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?
> >
> > I did.
> >
> > And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the
> > bug as a real bug...
>
> I've seen that happen a few times.  IME, jakub is usually right, but
> whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn.  It's possible to
> wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it,
> instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices.

Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. Sadly, he 
filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the option to 
get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;)

His user interface could be improved....
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Zachary Grafton]

On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote:
> > In <news:200706081440.37381.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de>,
> >
> > "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > > > b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get
> > > > > attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?
> > >
> > > I did.
> > >
> > > And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the
> > > bug as a real bug...
> >
> > I've seen that happen a few times.  IME, jakub is usually right, but
> > whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn.  It's possible to
> > wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it,
> > instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices.
>
> Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. Sadly, he
> filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the option
> to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;)
>
> His user interface could be improved....

Maybe someone should submit a bug report....
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Kent Fredric]

On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton <zachary.grafton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote:
> > > In <news:200706081440.37381.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de>,
> > >
> > > "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > > > On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > > > > b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get
> > > > > > attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?
> > > >
> > > > I did.
> > > >
> > > > And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the
> > > > bug as a real bug...
> > >
> > > I've seen that happen a few times.  IME, jakub is usually right, but
> > > whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn.  It's possible to
> > > wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it,
> > > instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices.
> >
> > Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. Sadly, he
> > filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the option
> > to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;)
> >
> > His user interface could be improved....
>
> Maybe someone should submit a bug report....

 http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html

I tried .   Critical bug, but was considered  'invalid' by the prayer-wranglers.



-- 
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Dale]

Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton <zachary.grafton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>> > On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote:
>> > > In <news:200706081440.37381.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de>,
>> > >
>> > > "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de>
>> wrote:
>> > > > On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> > > > > b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get
>> > > > > > attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?
>> > > >
>> > > > I did.
>> > > >
>> > > > And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized
>> the
>> > > > bug as a real bug...
>> > >
>> > > I've seen that happen a few times.  IME, jakub is usually right, but
>> > > whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn.  It's possible to
>> > > wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it,
>> > > instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices.
>> >
>> > Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam.
>> Sadly, he
>> > filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the
>> option
>> > to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;)
>> >
>> > His user interface could be improved....
>>
>> Maybe someone should submit a bug report....
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
>
> I tried .   Critical bug, but was considered  'invalid' by the
> prayer-wranglers.
>
>
>

Let me guess, Jakub closed it?  LOL 

Can I also assume he decided to stay?  I read he was leaving a while back.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Kent Fredric]

On 6/9/07, Dale <dalek@exceedtech.net> wrote:
> Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton <zachary.grafton@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe someone should submit a bug report....
> >
> > http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
> >
> > I tried .   Critical bug, but was considered  'invalid' by the
> > prayer-wranglers.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Let me guess, Jakub closed it?  LOL
>
> Can I also assume he decided to stay?  I read he was leaving a while back.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)  :-)


Lemme be perfectly clear here. Jakub does a very good job of what he
does, and gentoo IMO does suffer a bit when hes not here.  Bugs need
wrangling, or the right devs dont get even told they're there, and
Jakub does a legendary job of redirecting them to the right place.
Its like having an email server with only one ingoing email address
and having to get a human to redirect all the mails by hand to the
right inboxes.

He is like gentoo. Not perfect, but better than all the other choices :)
Gentoo does tend to get a little pissy sometimes, but what can you expect  =)

-- 
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Dale]

Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Dale <dalek@exceedtech.net> wrote:
>>
>> Let me guess, Jakub closed it?  LOL
>>
>> Can I also assume he decided to stay?  I read he was leaving a while
>> back.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)  :-)
>
>
> Lemme be perfectly clear here. Jakub does a very good job of what he
> does, and gentoo IMO does suffer a bit when hes not here.  Bugs need
> wrangling, or the right devs dont get even told they're there, and
> Jakub does a legendary job of redirecting them to the right place.
> Its like having an email server with only one ingoing email address
> and having to get a human to redirect all the mails by hand to the
> right inboxes.
>
> He is like gentoo. Not perfect, but better than all the other choices :)
> Gentoo does tend to get a little pissy sometimes, but what can you
> expect  =)
>

Maybe I should clarify a bit.  The first part was a joke.  I have filed
bugs and I have never had one closed that I can recall.  I'm clueless
about that sort of thing and he still managed to figure mine out.  Not
sure how he did that though.  LOL

I subscribe to the dev list and I think that was where I read he was
leaving.  A LOT, I mean  LOT, of people asked him to stay.  I didn't but
I didn't want him to leave either.  Even if he had closed one of my
bugs, I still wouldn't.  I think replacing him with a bot thing was
going to cause a lot of trouble.  I read that was their plan at least.

So, I agree.  He does his job well in my opinion.  If I had a few extra
brain cells left, I would try to help.  Me being on dial-up and my
health making me unpredictable to say the least would make that pretty
much pointless.

Glad you stayed Jakub.  Hang in there.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 252 bytes --]

Dale wrote:
> I didn't but I didn't want him to leave either.  
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)  :-)
>
>   

That should read as I didn't _say anything_ but I didn't want him to
leave either. 

It was to late to be posting much of anything.  o_O

Dale

:-)  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 637 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

On Saturday 09 June 2007 15:11:48 Dale wrote:
> I think replacing him with a bot thing was going to cause a lot of
> trouble.  I read that was their plan at least. 

The bot doesn't replace him. It shows suggestions for who the right assignee 
would be based on metadata.xml for the package in question. At least for now. 
And yes, he did reconsider and decide to stay.

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]

Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Saturday 09 June 2007 15:11:48 Dale wrote:
>   
>> I think replacing him with a bot thing was going to cause a lot of
>> trouble.  I read that was their plan at least. 
>>     
>
> The bot doesn't replace him. It shows suggestions for who the right assignee 
> would be based on metadata.xml for the package in question. At least for now. 
> And yes, he did reconsider and decide to stay.
>
>   

Yea, but whatever it would be, a human being has to be better. 
Computers are nice but they can't do everything, else they could do the
"wild thing" and make faster puters on their own.  LOL  In that case two
Intel systems would create a really nice AMD rig with SATA drives.  LOL

I better stop that.  LOL

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1243 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Enrico Weigelt]

* b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

> 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.

Isn't there an third state: "I didn't really understand what it's 
about - please explain" ?

Can't speak for others, but my world isn't binary ;-P

> 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?

IMHO, I do understand what you're talking about, but I don't aggree.
Of course people cannot understand evrything. But they should at least
understand if they do understand the issue or need it to be some bit
more explained. 

Let's take an different part of life, not computers, take policits.
I'm an elected representative. I have to decide lots of things here.
Normally somebody brings some proposable we should vote on. Usually 
we talk about it before the vote (yeah, many people try to get their
issues stamped w/o discussions before complaints could be raised ;-O)
If I didn't fully understand the issue, I simply ask before voting.
Issues don't get kicked off the agenda (aka marked INVALID) because 
the chairmain does not understand the whole thing. We rarely have 
cases where we actually don't want to vote on specific things due 
missing information or waiting for certain events. So we (by a vote)
take it from the agenda for a while and take it back ofter some time
(aka status NEEDINFO or LATER).

We don't have something like bgz for that. Just pen+paper. But it 
works quite good.

> 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).

No that's really not what I'd call "defend". Maybe you can have to 
defend some opinion, ie. if votes on certain decisions are running
(I want feature XYZ, or ABC should get in, etc). But on reporting 
an problem there's nothing to defend. It's just an (personal) report,
no decision, nothing to vote.

> > Okay, this is really getting in philophical topics liek god vs. satan ;-o
> > (--> getting too offtopic ?)
> 
> Yeah, but I like it. :)

Of course we can talk about it, but I'm not sure if this list is the
right place for that. Comments from others ? 

> > 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.

So he decided altough he should *KNOW* that he's missing necessary info.
The right action would have been marking NEEDINFO instead of INVALID.

> enrico: oh, don't you think it's a bug? F**K YOU MORONS ME IS WASTING TIME.

That's just because he always declared my bugs invalid. 
So the message is "we're not interested in any of your reports".

> 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)

That would be correct, if the bug had been marked NEEDINFO.

> > 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.

Well, in priciple I agree, but I'm really not willing in running 
against a wall over and over. If the people in charge don't show 
the slightest interest in my contributions, I don't see any reason
for wasting more time.

> But working alone helps no one apart from you and a bunch of 
> guys that agree with you. 

I don't have a problem with that. My fixes are working for me,
and if helps others and contribute, its nice. If not, it doesn't
actually matter.

> Discussing your patches with people could always be helpful.

Yes, that's why I'm posting them on this list.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Kent Fredric]

On 6/13/07, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> * b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's take an different part of life, not computers, take policits.
> I'm an elected representative. I have to decide lots of things here.
> Normally somebody brings some proposable we should vote on. Usually
> we talk about it before the vote (yeah, many people try to get their
> issues stamped w/o discussions before complaints could be raised ;-O)
> If I didn't fully understand the issue, I simply ask before voting.
> Issues don't get kicked off the agenda (aka marked INVALID) because
> the chairmain does not understand the whole thing. We rarely have
> cases where we actually don't want to vote on specific things due
> missing information or waiting for certain events. So we (by a vote)
> take it from the agenda for a while and take it back ofter some time
> (aka status NEEDINFO or LATER).
>
> We don't have something like bgz for that. Just pen+paper. But it
> works quite good.

Politics analogy breaks apart here on one point. In politics, you
don't have several thousand proposals a day. If Politics did have that
many proposals, and just any man & his dog could make a proposal, all
the ones with NEEDINFO would grow faster than the heap of dung @ a
sewage treatment station, and the percentage processed would get
progressively a smaller percentile, and governments with all their
bureaucratic red tape would get less done than they already do.

Im guessing if they had as many proposal as BGO does,  they would ,
like BGO, employ staff to filter the rubbish out. ( Cos you see,
BugWranglers are not your head heirachy, they're just the entry level
cleaner/rep who relays the information ), and that way, 10 year olds
who want something for Christmas won't put his request onto the daily
agenda and waste time. That way duplicate propositions are found and
associated as such. That way proposals which dont even have enough
info to get to council cos they cant hold their own water, or are
obviously bogus ( ie: i propose we nuke ourselves ) or proposals which
obviously don't affect a large enough part of the population ,  don't
inundate the council and waste  their time with unimportant issues,
due to them not having a lot of free time.

All you can do is be insistent and give more info, and keep
un-invalidating them, and they'll eventually listen, or find another
dev ( politician/rep/senator ) who will add weight to your claim and
delegate it  to the right place.

Outside that,   you can be a vigilante, and take the law into your own hands.

Thats all there is to it :)


-- 
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list