On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 17:02 +0000, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > I wasn't being snarky, I was being pragmatic. > > You're absolutely right that a triager should have looked at the bug > in bugzilla, tried to reproduce it, and comment on the results. I > can't comment on why that didn't happen. What I was commenting on was > the fact that when a bug sits untouched for whatever reason, the > single best way to get it unstuck is for the people who care about it > to provide more information. You have a right to your opinion, and it's not unreasonable in that respect. But you misinterpreted what was really happening though and made a snap decision. > The "most popular bugs" page reflects how many duplicate bugs have > been filed on any particular issue. We most certainly do consider that > as a factor when determining which bugs to work on. Would you rather > have limited resources devoted to the firefox crash bugs which has > been reported hundreds of times, or to the Flash bug reported by only > a few people, none of whom has indicated when reporting the issue that > they actually followed the documented instructions for deploying it? I would have preferred that a triager / maintainer had actually looked at the bug report and requested additional information if they thought it was needed. After that, certainly bugs can be prioritized. But there's no excuse for just simply ignoring bug reports. Period. End. Further, your "documented instructions" argument is a red herring. There are no documented instructions from Fedora for installing the 64-bit plugin. And at the time of the original report, the only available instructions were followed. > And I didn't post details in the ticket because I and others posted > them here, and you are active here, and I knew that you would follow > up on the issue, and my time is limited. I could have decided not to > contribute any help at all here or in the ticket; would that have been > preferable? I think I have been pretty clear about what I would have preferred. Don't act like you're the only one with limited time. It's selfish. You're far from the only one, and we use BZ for a reason. Your "help" was more by accident, and hasn't actually solved the problem reported in BZ, but rather just pointed to an updated way to use a newer version of the 32-bit plugin. The actual issue (64-bit plugins and corresponding nspluginwrapper packages) remains unresolved, and nobody has looked at that issue yet either. Since the 64-bit plugin has been pulled for now, and since (as another poster pointed out) the newer versions of Firefox have crash protection that at least partially negates the reason for wrapping 64-bit plugins, there's now actually a bigger question of if the 64-bit version of nspluginwrapper is really needed. But that's a discussion for another day. -- ==================================== "Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses." --George Washington Carver -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
