| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Jory A. Pratt wrote: |
| 5 |
> Nathan you have this misconception that just cause a bug apears on |
| 6 |
> one system it is gonna apear on multiple systems. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
What are you talking about? This whole discussion was framed with the |
| 9 |
situation where the *developer* determines that the bug report has |
| 10 |
merit. From my original post: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
"In the bug, I believe the dev implies that the reported bug has merit |
| 13 |
/yet he closes the bug before actually doing something about it/." |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Most compilation |
| 16 |
> bugs that I have seen are usually due to user not maintaining their |
| 17 |
> configurations properly. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Then that wouldn't be something that a dev would submit a fix for, now |
| 20 |
would it? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> You also still fail to understand that most |
| 23 |
> of us maintain more packages than just one and it is impossible for us |
| 24 |
> to take and drop what we are working on to help test and confirm that |
| 25 |
> a bug does exist and is not user error. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Again, you are confusing what I am suggesting with a completely |
| 28 |
different situation. NEVER have I suggested that user configuration |
| 29 |
problems should have some elaborate verification process. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> As far as team leads go they |
| 32 |
> make sure the project stay on task and packages and bugs are handled |
| 33 |
> in a timely manner. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Great! My hat's off to them! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> I would like to know do you want us to have 15 |
| 38 |
> devs test for a particular bug if a team lead is not avaliable or |
| 39 |
> would you like us to have just 2 people test? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
OK, now you're rambling. If a team lead isn't available they should have |
| 42 |
a designated sub. That has nothing to do with the bug closer process; |
| 43 |
that is a Gentoo organization issue. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> This has gotten way out of control with time and how issues are |
| 46 |
> delt with, personally I think that you have a vendictive against a few |
| 47 |
> devs that have closed bugs on you that they have not been able to |
| 48 |
> replicate and/or find invalid. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Yes, that tinfoil hat is paying off nicely for you. ;) |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Seriously, my suggestion has nothing to with bugs that are found to be |
| 53 |
invalid. Please read the thread carefully and that should become apparent. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Furthermore, I don't hold grudges against people who disagree with me. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
And lastly, what bugs have I filed that were marked invalid that would |
| 58 |
lead me to start this great conspiracy against some devs? Please |
| 59 |
enlighten me: |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/query.cgi?format=advanced |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
> I can not say either way all I know is |
| 64 |
> you in FACT have a misconception of how much time goes into testing |
| 65 |
> before a package is moved to stable. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Now you're a mind reader too. Please tell me what else I have a |
| 68 |
misconception about. I'm sure my life will be greatly enriched by your |
| 69 |
sage wisdom in the matter! ;) |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
If you want to continue the flamewar, I suggest we take it off this |
| 72 |
mailing list; other subscribers might not find it as entertaining as I do... |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Nathan |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 77 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 78 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
iD8DBQFC0JSk2QTTR4CNEQARAhTmAJ96wIR/fPFm9xTK+K+tOzmcztm3dQCgmxWr |
| 81 |
+Zf5AtXi5Nux+eWK/Gfcbcg= |
| 82 |
=moyc |
| 83 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 84 |
-- |
| 85 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives