On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:49, Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 01:10:43 -0400 as excerpted: >> it was purely to keep people from continuing to whine with circular >> logic. if bugzilla had a way to temporarily lock comments, i would >> have used that. > > In theory, that'd be a useful feature. In fact, probably not so much, as > it simply encourages people to complain much more visibly, very possibly > in a PR-adverse way.
i couldn't care less. if people are swayed by random rants rather than reality, then i'm not going to waste time on them. > You could see it was circular logic, but what if he had blogged about it > and that blog had hit the FLOSS media circuit? How many FLOSS reporters > would have seen that it was circular logic based on his blog and a locked > (comment or visibility) bug? What about all their readers? clearly you don't know my opinion of blogs in general. > Additionally, that bug was referenced in a number of changelog entries. > How useful is a link to a locked bug, for those looking for more info, as > I, for instance did (as I often do with -rX bumps, since information > that's significant enough to cause a gentoo revision bump in the absence > of an upstream version bump is often significant enough for me as an > admin to want to be aware of)? then you'd simply wait until it got unlocked. or ask a dev. > Unfortunately, locking a bug to kill the whining is likely to have rather > more negative effects than one might have anticipated. One would think > comment locking would be a logical enough extension to have been > implemented by now; perhaps this is why it hasn't been. (Full visibility > locking is of course different, security bugs and all.) i don't see any negative effects so far. -mike
