On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 20:16 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote: > On 07/30/2018 10:28 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > You still haven't explained why, having fixed a bug, you then reopened > > and reassigned it. > > At the time the bug was filed, it wasn't clear to me if the bug is in > zutils or in initramfs-tools. I acted quickly to mitigate the problem > (as written in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=903931#35) to > imediately minimize its impact whereas the actual source of the problem > can be investigated later on. > > After that it turns out that the bug is not actually in zutils but > initramfs-tools. Therefore I reopened the two bugs, merged and > reassigned them to initramfs-tools because it needs to be fixed there.
I disagree with this analysis. I believe this to be a bug in zutils,
but I will nevertheless work around it in initramfs-tools because it's
easy to do so.
> > But I don't care to argue with you.
>
> From my point of view there's no argument. I'm asking you constructly
> and in good faith to elaborate about your rather terse statements that I
> think are (and turned out to be) not correct (such as "you didn't
> removed the divertion", "reassigning with no explenation", "you didn't
> write the control commands properly", etc.) with the intention to get to
> know where I could improve/learn something for the future.
>
> Can we adress the technical thing (bug with patch in initramfs-tools) or
> is there a non-technical problem?
The non-technical problem I see is that your upstream is dismissive of
valid bug reports ("but it's compatible with cat", "this bug is
impossible in C++!"), and that you are agreeing with this nonsense.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
[W]e found...that it wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had
thought. I realized that a large part of my life from then on was going
to be spent in finding mistakes in my own programs.
- Maurice Wilkes, 1949
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
