Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:50:32
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] zlib breakage by Mike Frysinger
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. 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? 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)? 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.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>