1 |
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 02:46 +0300, Tommi Pirinen wrote: |
2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> >I've been flamed by a couple of users for not adding a broken gtk-2 file |
5 |
> >selector patch to gvim. There're several "please add my horridly broken |
6 |
> >ebuild for this lame package which is full of bugs and unmaintained |
7 |
> >upstream" bugs which I'd love to close as WONTFIX, but past experience |
8 |
> >has shown that it's generally easiest to just leave them alone. Closing |
9 |
> >a bug as WONTFIX really upsets some people, no matter what the reason. |
10 |
> >If I ignore a bug instead, chances are no-one's gonna know that I'm the |
11 |
> >person to flame :) |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> Well, there will unfortunately be some of those kind of users as well. |
15 |
> But still, when bumping in to bugs like this all an end user sees is |
16 |
> that there's an untouched bug that no one seems to care about, most |
17 |
> probably the user won't know the brokedness of issue but will rather |
18 |
> deduce ignorance or laziness of maintainers. The issue is problematic |
19 |
> though, and I don't know a definitive answer which would work for all, |
20 |
> but I'd still like a bit more response to bug reports from time to time. |
21 |
> It's very frustrating to send bug reports when it seems that no one |
22 |
> reads them. |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
I agree with this point. If a dev is scared (/me uses word gently in |
26 |
case my vision of an angry Scott as Ciaran is true) of marking bugs they |
27 |
wont fix as WONTFIX then they just appear untouched and obviously adds a |
28 |
huge amount of apparently open bugs. |
29 |
|
30 |
Surely a quick comment to say "Patch breaks <something> and not |
31 |
supported upstream, WONTFIX" is better in that case |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Tom Wesley <tom@×××××.org> |