Bill Davidsen wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: >> Closed only because no one bothered to confirm whether the bug still >> exists yet or not. >> > This is a clearly reported bug, with a clear and repeatable way to > demonstrate it, and no note to indicate that any change has been made to > fix it. Therefore why would someone need to verify that it still exists, > since it can be reproduced in about the same time as it takes to mark it > NEEDSINFO? Because newer versions of the software have been released since then, someone/somewhere really does need to do the verification. > I have the feeling that some bugs get totally blown off by marking them > NEEDSINFO instead of UNMAINTAINED or WONTFIX, when the maintainer is the > one who can't be bothered to check using the procedure the user > provided. And why would a user bother, given that no one fixed it in a > year? ... > The hardest thing to do is admit you are too busy or unmotivated to > maintain something and hand it off or drop it. Been there, did it too > late several times. Nod, excellent point. In this case, I'll freely admit being both too busy and unmotivated to personally help do much about this particular issue. I do my best to prioritize my time/efforts, and this one wasn't on my radar. Still, for anything to happen and for bugs to be fixed, it takes at least *one* person (or more, and more the better) to care enough to "champion the cause", if you will. If that requirement isn't met, the bugs die of inattention, I'm afraid. -- Rex -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
