Raphael Quinet wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Rebecca J. Walter wrote: > >> Can somebody explain to me why bug reports are A Bad Thing in this > >> case? > > > > Because it is too broken. It would result in 6 zillion bug reports. > > The release is intended for DEVELOPERS... for people who want to hack on > > it and make patches to fix things. Really most of these people should > > be getting it from CVS, but an opinion was expressed that they should > > not have to get it from CVS and that a release was required. > > Then should accept bug reports! In my opinion, bug reports about > 1.3.0 should be encouraged, not discouraged. Even if the current > release is very unstable, those who try it should use Bugzilla. However, since the 1.3.0 release isn't even intended to be used, bug reports against features which are known to be broken, or are disabled, would only clutter the actual type of bug information which people want. To my mind the idea of having the 1.3.0 release was ust to draw a line in the sand, and say "this is how far we've gotten with this. Is there anything obvious that we have missed?". Reports on build fails (such as those that came in yesterday) with suggested fixes and the like are, of course, welcome. But "bug report" has taken on a somewhat non-technical meaning, and is understood (at least by me) to address a specific point, when at this stage the focus is on grand sweeping changes. A 1.3.0 release is a chance to give developers who maybe haven't been involved in a while a place to join in. That said, your suggestions on bugzilla (while I personally haven't gotten into the habit of checking it) are reasonable, and I'd go along with them (not that that'll carry much weight :) Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, E-Mail dave.neary@xxxxxxxxxx Palamon Technologies Ltd. Phone +353-1-634-5059
