I don't want to get embroiled in this conversation, but I am concerned about the use of GNATS illustrated here.
On 12 Jan 2006, at 07:34, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:05:13PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:ports/76013 - patch committed after four months ports/76019 - superceded after a monthOne was committed, the other superceded. The first change only works if the latter is commited. Thus, the port remains broken and we keep usinglocalized patches to fix it.
Where does it say that in the PR?
The 'superceding port' is a different apache module that has different limitations. There is no reason not to commit the latter and fix this particular port, but I can't convince anyone to do that.
I don't know that you tried. Why didn't you followup to the PR and ask for it to be reopened, or point out that there was a problem?
ports/76724 - patch committed after a week docs/87445 - immediately adopted by a committer, being worked onI received no e-mail notification of either. My posts about said bugs to the appropriate mailing lists garnered no responses other than "put in GNATS"
We don't have mail logs back that far, so I can't see where that went wrong, but GNATS always send the submitter mail on a state change. You could always have looked at the PR.
Oh, how we have wronged you! Please let us know how we may correct this grievous injustice!Nice sarcasm. Doesn't change that these were ignored,
Except that we have shown that they were not, of course. Ceri
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
