| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:16:15 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | We get innundated with tons of bogus bug reports every day, overlays |
| 4 |
> | or not - see the number of invalid/duplicate bugs flowing every days. |
| 5 |
> | We got a couple of bugs in last two a three days basically stating |
| 6 |
> | "ZOMG, glibc downgrade broke my system, t3h Gentoo bug!!11!!" - so |
| 7 |
> | what? They get marked as invalid, live goes on. This argument really |
| 8 |
> | doesn't stand. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> They get marked as invalid after how long? There're some really subtle |
| 11 |
> ways in which libraries can screw things up. I've dealt with far too |
| 12 |
> many bug reports where it took a heck of a lot of debugging before it |
| 13 |
> became clear that the cause was some dodgy external stuff. And that |
| 14 |
> was with me understanding the packages in question -- there's no way |
| 15 |
> bug wranglers could've figured it out. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yeah, and the point is? It happens every day, there are already tons of |
| 18 |
third-party overlays used by Gentoo users, but once this thread about |
| 19 |
"official" overlays started, you came here to tell us "wow, this all |
| 20 |
will cause terrible borkage and flood developers w/ tons of stupid |
| 21 |
invalid bugs, we need policies"? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I really don't see how overlays run mostly by Gentoo devs would cause |
| 24 |
any more borkage than totally uncontrolled third-party overlays run by |
| 25 |
whomever creates and publishes them, sorry. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
jakub |
Archives