On 7/15/05, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > By sending it upstream, all you're doing is sending the 'explosion' > somewhere else to be ignored. The sentence has the underlying assumption that explosions will be ignored regardless of whether they are. If you really believe that, then you would be advocating avoding explosions instead of encouraging them. But instead you are advocating that explosions are prefectly acceptable downstream in an effort to make downstream maintainers do your bidding. That's not going to work. > I'm not saying every single complaint has > to be addressed, but when a large contingency of users Prove to me that the complaints about the terminal represent a large contingent of fedora's userbase. I claim you and everyone else in this thread represent a vocal minority of the fedora userbase as well as the gnome userbase more generally. Prove me wrong. If you want to show gnome developers there is a "large" contigent of the gnome userbase who have the same complaint.. drive it upstream..with organized numbers that can actually be considered "large" across distributions. I look forward to signing your petition. -jef"Case D: you fire off so many redudant complaints in the downstream list that downstream maintainers and developers tune the list out completely in an effort to avoid the noise."spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
