| 1 |
On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton <zachary.grafton@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > In <news:200706081440.37381.volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de>, |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > > > b.n. <brullonulla@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > > > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get |
| 10 |
> > > > > > attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. |
| 11 |
> > > > > |
| 12 |
> > > > > Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub? |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > > I did. |
| 15 |
> > > > |
| 16 |
> > > > And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the |
| 17 |
> > > > bug as a real bug... |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > I've seen that happen a few times. IME, jakub is usually right, but |
| 20 |
> > > whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn. It's possible to |
| 21 |
> > > wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it, |
| 22 |
> > > instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. Sadly, he |
| 25 |
> > filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the option |
| 26 |
> > to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;) |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > His user interface could be improved.... |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Maybe someone should submit a bug report.... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I tried . Critical bug, but was considered 'invalid' by the prayer-wranglers. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Kent |
| 40 |
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x| |
| 41 |
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@×××.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}' |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives