On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:50:57 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote: > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 à 05:41 -0700, Andrew Farris a écrit : > > > >> But what could be gained from trying to solve bugs in software that is long > >> modified to be unrecognizable from the state it was in then... > > > > Packaging problems persist even if the underlying software was updated > > many times. > > Maybe, but not necessarily. Lots of packaging issues get solved without a bug > and it may have just been overlooked when it was solved. How is anyone going > to know this without spending an inordinate amount of time deciding if the old > bug still exists? Who is better equipped to do that than the original reporter? > If they don't have time, fine... let the bug get closed. No, thanks. Too many bugs => "inordinate amount of time" (your theory). The bot confronts me with a collection of bugs and sets a short deadline. I regret that I've submitted them. The Fedora School of Bug Mismanagement teaches me to let them rest in peace this time, because that's the only way I can avoid fighting against a bot that tries to put additional work onto my shoulders from time to time. Retest against FC6, retest against F7, retest against F8, retest against F9. It's insulting. > > Next time do not flood reporters flood component owners (with a 'can we > > close this yes/no ?' if no answer do not close is assumed) since > > component owners are the ones asking to push stuff under the carpet and > > should at least perform some activity to get their wish. +1 > It is the component owners and packagers that already are flooded with too many > old bugs to get through, now you suggest they get requests for individual > attention on each? That sounds like a great plan for Congress, not for open source. > Now bug reporters are flooded, too. ;) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
