Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

[Dale]

Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton <zachary.grafton@×××××.com> wrote:
>> On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>> > On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote:
>> > > In <news:200706081440.37381.volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de>,
>> > >
>> > > "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de>
>> wrote:
>> > > > On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> > > > > b.n. <brullonulla@×××××.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get
>> > > > > > attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?
>> > > >
>> > > > I did.
>> > > >
>> > > > And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized
>> the
>> > > > bug as a real bug...
>> > >
>> > > I've seen that happen a few times.  IME, jakub is usually right, but
>> > > whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn.  It's possible to
>> > > wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it,
>> > > instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices.
>> >
>> > Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam.
>> Sadly, he
>> > filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the
>> option
>> > to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;)
>> >
>> > His user interface could be improved....
>>
>> Maybe someone should submit a bug report....
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
>
> I tried .   Critical bug, but was considered  'invalid' by the
> prayer-wranglers.
>
>
>

Let me guess, Jakub closed it?  LOL 

Can I also assume he decided to stay?  I read he was leaving a while back.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list