On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:49, Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 01:10:43 -0400 as excerpted:
>> it was purely to keep people from continuing to whine with circular
>> logic. if bugzilla had a way to temporarily lock comments, i would
>> have used that.
> In theory, that'd be a useful feature. In fact, probably not so much, as
> it simply encourages people to complain much more visibly, very possibly
> in a PR-adverse way.
i couldn't care less. if people are swayed by random rants rather
than reality, then i'm not going to waste time on them.
> You could see it was circular logic, but what if he had blogged about it
> and that blog had hit the FLOSS media circuit? How many FLOSS reporters
> would have seen that it was circular logic based on his blog and a locked
> (comment or visibility) bug? What about all their readers?
clearly you don't know my opinion of blogs in general.
> Additionally, that bug was referenced in a number of changelog entries.
> How useful is a link to a locked bug, for those looking for more info, as
> I, for instance did (as I often do with -rX bumps, since information
> that's significant enough to cause a gentoo revision bump in the absence
> of an upstream version bump is often significant enough for me as an
> admin to want to be aware of)?
then you'd simply wait until it got unlocked. or ask a dev.
> Unfortunately, locking a bug to kill the whining is likely to have rather
> more negative effects than one might have anticipated. One would think
> comment locking would be a logical enough extension to have been
> implemented by now; perhaps this is why it hasn't been. (Full visibility
> locking is of course different, security bugs and all.)
i don't see any negative effects so far.