Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > TB> 1) Upstream author didn't change an API, they changed a direct user > TB> issue. > > False.
You know, your utter reluctance to do more than write the minimal possible words causes frequent problems. Here's how it's a direct user issue. A sawfish user customizes windows using a GUI customization agent, picks an appearance trait, and then does a "grab" (they click on window). That copies the current Class of the window grabbed into the customization, and all future windows of that Class will have the customization applied. This is a *USER* feature, not an API. No programming is going on, not even editing text files with obscure hidden customization thingies, just straightforward use of a straightforward feature. Then, when the Class on gnome-terminal changes, the customization of course breaks. The bug is that there should be a clean upgrade path, and not just random breakage of customizations. > TB> 3) He can report the problem to the gnome maintainers and mark the bug > TB> forwarded. > > Apparently you don't understand. Read my lips ((c) G. Bush) I'll *never* > change the upstream API, I'll *never* ask the upstream author to change > that. 1) They don't have to change the API, there are *other* methods of solving the problem 2) Does your statement mean you will *never* forward wishlist items either? > If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get > upgrade, then install potato. > > testing/unstable is for real men (tm). You don't get it. A user who upgrades from *potato* to the eventually released *woody* will get all these bugs. It is good that they can be caught now, but they don't just bite users of unstable, they bite users of *stable* at the point the upgrade occurs. Thomas