2014/10/24 0:45 "David L. Craig" <dlc....@gmail.com>: > > On 14Oct23:0004-0400, Charles Kroeger wrote: > > > Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? > > The code speaks when its execution reveals a need to > run reportbug (or not). When we fail to run reportbug, > we muzzle the code and possibly allow that bug to be > part of the Jessie release. Hopefully that is nobody's > idea of a good approach. Also, hopefully everybody is > aware anybody can run reportbug, which simply emails the > bug report to the BTS--no registration is necessary and > formatting the report is quite painless.
Please understand that I do not argue with this. If I could afford the hardware to replace my netbook that is no longer portable, or even if my tablet were not locked down and legally driver-hidden, I would be dual booting and probing for bugs in my spare time between classes and on the train. Not that I really have any spare time. > If systemd is the disaster many believe it to be, > its defects should be manifesting as we test systemd > behavior in as many configurations as possible and it > should not be trivial to remediate those arising from > poor software design. This is the attitude that allowed MS-Windows to become a defacto standard, you know. (Please don't tell me I have to unpack that comment. And don't complain that it's innuendo. We are among engineers are we not?) > If you want systemd to not be the default, you need > to prove to the Release Team it is unworthy, and the > only way to do that is to document the defects in the > BTS. > > Is that sufficiently clear? What kind of a question is that? > -- > <not cent from sell> > May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! > > Dave_Craig______________________________________________ > "So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. > You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. > Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe." Heh. > __--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_________________ -- Joel Rees By the waters of Babylon ...