On 03/14/10 13:05, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Heiko Baums<lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin<aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx>:
So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to
the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is
exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer.
...
See the bug referenced and the final comment in the bug. It links to
two upstream bug reports
OK, so the thing is... *I* knew it was considered duplicate, because I'd
gotten a private response from the developer saying so (via the
annoyingly tiny reopen-request-box communication mechanism). But the
publicly displayed bug-resolution said "fixed in so-and-so package
versions" -- versions in which it wasn't fixed (the dev and I seem to
agree). Any of the following would satisfy me:
- I contact dev privately, dev switches resolution to "closed -
duplicate of upstream report"
- I or the dev adds a comment to the Arch bug-report that says the bug
is closed because it's an upstream bug (see link). (The current final
comment doesn't do this because it seems to say just, hi, these bugs
might be related: quote of that comment:
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26266
Found more bugs that were posted here for example:
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14693
Sounds like some serious problems over there.
- there are probably other resolutions that would be satisfying too.
For example, I'd be fine with the bug being re-opened (since it's not
fixed, even if it is an upstream xorg and/or kernel bug, and since it
does make graphical Arch-Linux nigh unusable for some people, aside from
hacky workarounds, and since it does/did interact with packaging
decisions like whether to enable KMS by default).
-Isaac
