1 |
* b.n. <brullonulla@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
Hi, |
4 |
|
5 |
> Your problem is: you live in the delusion that if you write thing X, |
6 |
> people immediately understand X and either refuse it or accept it. |
7 |
|
8 |
Isn't there an third state: "I didn't really understand what it's |
9 |
about - please explain" ? |
10 |
|
11 |
Can't speak for others, but my world isn't binary ;-P |
12 |
|
13 |
> If you write thing X and X is not blatantly, utmostly trivially obvious |
14 |
> (and even in this case) most people will NOT understand it. For example, |
15 |
> I am explaining to you this concept right now, and I see you have an |
16 |
> hard time grasping it. You see? |
17 |
|
18 |
IMHO, I do understand what you're talking about, but I don't aggree. |
19 |
Of course people cannot understand evrything. But they should at least |
20 |
understand if they do understand the issue or need it to be some bit |
21 |
more explained. |
22 |
|
23 |
Let's take an different part of life, not computers, take policits. |
24 |
I'm an elected representative. I have to decide lots of things here. |
25 |
Normally somebody brings some proposable we should vote on. Usually |
26 |
we talk about it before the vote (yeah, many people try to get their |
27 |
issues stamped w/o discussions before complaints could be raised ;-O) |
28 |
If I didn't fully understand the issue, I simply ask before voting. |
29 |
Issues don't get kicked off the agenda (aka marked INVALID) because |
30 |
the chairmain does not understand the whole thing. We rarely have |
31 |
cases where we actually don't want to vote on specific things due |
32 |
missing information or waiting for certain events. So we (by a vote) |
33 |
take it from the agenda for a while and take it back ofter some time |
34 |
(aka status NEEDINFO or LATER). |
35 |
|
36 |
We don't have something like bgz for that. Just pen+paper. But it |
37 |
works quite good. |
38 |
|
39 |
> So you have to explain it again and to "defend" your opinion in the |
40 |
> sense that you have to nail into the head of the relevant people that |
41 |
> you're right (or nail into yours that you are wrong). |
42 |
|
43 |
No that's really not what I'd call "defend". Maybe you can have to |
44 |
defend some opinion, ie. if votes on certain decisions are running |
45 |
(I want feature XYZ, or ABC should get in, etc). But on reporting |
46 |
an problem there's nothing to defend. It's just an (personal) report, |
47 |
no decision, nothing to vote. |
48 |
|
49 |
> > Okay, this is really getting in philophical topics liek god vs. satan ;-o |
50 |
> > (--> getting too offtopic ?) |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Yeah, but I like it. :) |
53 |
|
54 |
Of course we can talk about it, but I'm not sure if this list is the |
55 |
right place for that. Comments from others ? |
56 |
|
57 |
> > In case of the mozilla-launcher bug, I did explain it. And I found an |
58 |
> > quick and dirty solution for me. Not a clean one, but it's a start. |
59 |
> > We had several better ideas in this thread, which should be discussed. |
60 |
> > But as long as the bug is marked invalid, I have to assume that debate |
61 |
> > is unwelcomed and so won't invest much more resouces in that. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> No, you have to assume that people upstream have not understood why the |
64 |
> bug is valid. |
65 |
> The conversation was: |
66 |
> enrico: hey, there's bug X in package Y when doing Z |
67 |
> bugwrangler: (giving just a fast glance) hmmm, doesn't look like a bug. |
68 |
> maybe better avoiding wasting time. |
69 |
|
70 |
So he decided altough he should *KNOW* that he's missing necessary info. |
71 |
The right action would have been marking NEEDINFO instead of INVALID. |
72 |
|
73 |
> enrico: oh, don't you think it's a bug? F**K YOU MORONS ME IS WASTING TIME. |
74 |
|
75 |
That's just because he always declared my bugs invalid. |
76 |
So the message is "we're not interested in any of your reports". |
77 |
|
78 |
> Now the RIGHT reply would be: |
79 |
> enrico: ehm, no. you misunderstand me, probably. it's REALLY a bug for |
80 |
> those reasons. i'll try to be even more clear now...blah,blah...you see |
81 |
> it now? |
82 |
> b.w.: still not convinced |
83 |
> enrico: (repeat until convince someone or you are forced to give up) |
84 |
|
85 |
That would be correct, if the bug had been marked NEEDINFO. |
86 |
|
87 |
> > Well, of course we're all conditioned on defending if we're attacked, |
88 |
> > probably generic. But I really don't see I anytings to gain here |
89 |
> > than maybe my honour in such an unimportant place like bgo. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> That's where you are wrong, and that's why I still insist answering to |
92 |
> this thread. If you insist: |
93 |
> - you get all the community aware that there is a bug |
94 |
> - you could get the bug fixed |
95 |
> - Gentoo is better |
96 |
> That's why it is important. Frankly I don't care that much about your |
97 |
> honour :), but I care about Gentoo. It's my OS, I want it better. |
98 |
|
99 |
Well, in priciple I agree, but I'm really not willing in running |
100 |
against a wall over and over. If the people in charge don't show |
101 |
the slightest interest in my contributions, I don't see any reason |
102 |
for wasting more time. |
103 |
|
104 |
> But working alone helps no one apart from you and a bunch of |
105 |
> guys that agree with you. |
106 |
|
107 |
I don't have a problem with that. My fixes are working for me, |
108 |
and if helps others and contribute, its nice. If not, it doesn't |
109 |
actually matter. |
110 |
|
111 |
> Discussing your patches with people could always be helpful. |
112 |
|
113 |
Yes, that's why I'm posting them on this list. |
114 |
|
115 |
|
116 |
cu |
117 |
-- |
118 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
119 |
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ |
120 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
121 |
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: |
122 |
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce |
123 |
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: |
124 |
http://patches.metux.de/ |
125 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
126 |
-- |
127 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |