1 |
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 14:18, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:49, Duncan wrote: |
4 |
>>> Unfortunately, locking a bug to kill the whining is likely to have rather |
5 |
>>> more negative effects than one might have anticipated. One would think |
6 |
>>> comment locking would be a logical enough extension to have been |
7 |
>>> implemented by now; perhaps this is why it hasn't been. (Full visibility |
8 |
>>> locking is of course different, security bugs and all.) |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> i don't see any negative effects so far. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Well, you can probably count the 22 emails preceding this one, and the |
13 |
> 22 that are sure to follow... |
14 |
|
15 |
i believe the posts were going to be made regardless. if i hadn't |
16 |
shut down the bug temporarily, then it'd have been on there instead. |
17 |
perhaps after enough time of me saying "no", it'd have come over to |
18 |
the list anyways. it's a crap shoot either way. |
19 |
|
20 |
> User-rel is definitely the appropriate way to handle things like this. |
21 |
> There are legitimate technical disagreements over the best way to |
22 |
> handle this situation, and I can't approve of Nikos's tendency to |
23 |
> personalize things in the bug. On the other hand, simply telling him |
24 |
> to get lost is likely to just lead to more flames/etc. |
25 |
|
26 |
i'd rather not waste more people's time, but using userrel probably |
27 |
would have satisfied that desire better than temporarily locking the |
28 |
bug. |
29 |
-mike |