From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:47:22 -0700 --"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote (on Friday, June 27, 2003 14:44:26 -0700): > People DON'T understand. I _WANT_ them to be able to > fall through the cracks. I fail to see your point here. If that's what you want, then just don't look at the bugme data. bugme bugs persist, when I delete an email it doesn't get deleted from the bugme database (at least when I go and view it). Let me draw a diagram for you, say we have 3 contributors A B and C. They watch the mailing lists, analyze bugs, and work on new features. They work on what they want to, by the very nature of open-source development. When a bug hits a mailing list the following might happen: A is overloaded, he deletes the email. B has a look, realizes he is not competent in this area and deletes the email. C analayzes and fixes the bug. I want A and B to have never again have to deal with this bug report. There is zero point in having the capability to "delete" the email if it persists in some database somewhere, it's not deleted it's still in the backlog. If nobody need fear their report get deleted by overload on the developers, nobody need do anything but be lazy. And that system does not work, the contribution must be mutual for this system to work. This means that when developers are overloaded they can delete your report and you'll resend it later. I don't understand why people have no problem understanding that this system works when it is in the context of lossy networking protocols (IPV4) and the things that sit on top to ensure reliable data delivery via retransmit (TCP), but when this idea is proposed for things involving people and software development they fall to fear and doubt. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
