On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:35:38PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > That suggests that FTBFS bugs for SCC archs will be ignored just as > long, 1/2 - 3/4 of the planed release cycle. Now imagine a bug in fsck > that destroys data being left open for so long.
In my experience doing this sort of thing this is the exception rather than the rule and in most cases it's due to inactivity rather than anything else. I can only recall one case where I felt that the maintainer was being actively unconstructive and there I do recall thinking that the issue was more the maintainer's general attitude towards quality and addressing user problems rather than a specific hostility to porting issues. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
