On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:05:32 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 05 October 2006 13:40, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > As long as I get the feeling that I'm ignored or that I will be flamed > > again for adding comments or attachments to other person's tickets, I wait > > for clear instructions before flooding bugzilla with too many details > > which are not requested. > > 'again' ? Yes. > In this case, the RH employee reporting the bug is no different from random > schmo off the street reporting the bug. The maintainer needed certain > information to continue, which is why the bug is marked as NEEDINFO. You're mixing two tickets. The ticket where logs are needed is not in NEEDINFO state. The other one is, although feedback has been provided. It is an oh-so smart way to ignore additional comments and effectively forget about a ticket completely. Initial reporter has not responded yet. A comment from me did not clear the NEEDINFO state. Later comments also didn't get any reply. Not even the question "whether FC6 shall ship with a broken mga driver?". No signs of two-way communication because of invisible developers. So, your best excuse is to blame us, who are in Cc? > Before > that information is provided, however it is provided, the bug cannot be > worked on and other bugs, which have the needed info, will be worked on > instead. If we held up every release so that every piece of hardware worked > perfectly, we'd never release the product. Apples and oranges, Jesse. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list