On 06/07/12 07:56, Oliver Burger wrote:
Am 06.07.2012 08:18, schrieb AL13N:
Op donderdag 5 juli 2012 23:52:39 schreef Claire Robinson:
With respect Nicolas, you're not on the receiving end.
[...]
allthough i see badly worded(possibly to look offensive) sentences, i
don't
think this is intentional, and more a problem of communication than
something
else. I often have the feeling that certain sentences from french
people come
accross as rude to me. I've come to understand that this is not the
intention,
but somehow related to how french sentences are built and how it's been
translated to english.
The same thing was pointed out to me by a native speaker (as MrsB is),
when I wrote an answer that somehow was rather rude to the receiver.
We have to keep in mind, that most of us are non native speakers and
that all of us have slightly different cultures.
So - although it may be hard - it would be good for the native speakers
among us, not to put every word through a rudeness detector. I know the
Brits are far more courteous then the Germans (and perhaps the French as
well?), so let's go back to fixing bugs and not feeling hurt by people
who might not even be rude from their point of view...
Oliver
This has nothing to do with being rude.
As I said previously, this is being blown wildly out of proportion. In
reality it centres around one packager and two bugs. In both these bugs
the packager expected QA to validate updates where one was an xinetd
service which expressly stated it was disabled by default but in actual
fact was enabled and in the other a mailing list with a web interface
which simply couldn't work in it's default configuration.
What it being thrown at us is that we are unreasonably expecting every
single little bug to be fixed without any common and need to make
drastic changes to our policies.
We attended the packager meeting on Wednesday to respond to this and
discuss it. At the meeting it was agreed that we had not changed the way
we have been doing things since day one and that the right way forward
was to continue doing what we were doing, with both packagers and QA
using common sense.
The following day the same far fetched accusations are thrown at us
again, now escalated to the ML, suggesting we caused a months delay and
suggesting a solution to the accusation being we begin to 'rubber stamp'
security updates regardless of if they actually work or not or an
internet facing service which says it's disabled is actually not so.
In both cases there were simple ways to fix them. In one it was just to
alter the description (2 minutes) so it didn't say it was disabled and
in the other it was either to add a suggest or alter the default
configuration so it didn't require the missing suggest (2 minutes).
We have to use common sense in QA and only ask that, to avoid all this
unpleasantness in the future, common sense is used by the packager also.
All this is a reaction to 4 minutes of additional work. That is not
common sense to me.
If we're expected to validate updates in the state these two bugs
reached us then we may as well not be here at all.
Claire
