On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sorry to bring this again, but something has to change in the way >> bugs are handled in Arch. >> >> I've open this bug report http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13905 about >> the awesome package in community. >> >> The package maintainer just closes the bug, not solving it, claiming >> it's upstream, and not even investigating the problem. He suggests I >> ask upstream. >> >> Ok, I play a good citizen, I do ask upstream, we find the problem, a >> sollution is found - it turns out the PKGBUILD was wrong from the >> begining - but still I submit a patch to awesome so that building it >> is much easier. >> >> I request reopening the bug .. it's a small text-area, not very >> usable, so I just write "New information" .. since the bug was closed >> with "You may want to ask upstream why they install those files by >> default.". >> >> And then I get the answer: >> Reason for denial: >> You need to be more specific that "New information" in a reopen request... >> >> Now, it's not like I enjoy hanging out in the bug system opening bugs, >> investigating them, hoping to improve ArchLinux's packages.. and I >> don't see how I could've deserved this behaviour. >> >> The bug report shouldn't have been closed in the first place, since >> the problem was not even solved. > > It's worth noting that the people who handle re-open requests are not > necessarily the one assigned to the bug. And another note: when reopening a report, the text of the reopen request is added as a comment. It may be a small text area, but it does allow for more text than it seems
