On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 19:14 +0200, Andrew Holway wrote:
> >
> > Well, I used to agree. But when a bug report filed in December goes
> > untouched entering April, which I don't recall happening prior to RH
> > subsuming the project, it takes away impetus to ever file one again from
> > lowly end users like me I think.
>
>
> It appears that you are the only one to have encountered this bug. Within
> any project, open source or proprietary; problems are usually prioritized
> according to the severity of the bug and the number of users that it
> affects.
Yep. I may be the only one that happens to use this in the way I do. But
then I would expect at least a change to closed status with a reason to
be given, based on past behavior?
Regardless, if one is given the ability to switch run levels via the use
of telinit and the like, shouldn't one be able to rely on it operating
properly?
When one takes the time to run multiple tests demonstrating the problem,
collect and make available the related files, post with "if more is
needed or something wasn't properly reported let me know", wouldn't one
deserve at least a look-see and some sort of response or status change?
That being in the "contribute to the community" spirit under discussion.
The processes I go through that produced the bad results have been used
by me since CentoS4.x, IIRC, and certainly through all of CentOS 5 and 6
prior to 6.6.
BTW, in acknowledgment of the CentOS folks, I realize they try to be
100% compatible with RH, warts and all, so the occurrence of the problem
is not really a CentOS group problem, per se, but a RH issue.
Bill
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
