Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 22:44 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:53, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > The best joke, IMO, is the fact that the release of MC 4.6.1 is going > > > to happen real soon now for two and a half years. > > > > > that's indeed a sad joke ... :( > > Yeah. I almost sent out an April fools prank mail announcing the release > of 4.6.1 with Pavel Roskin's address as the sender. As I don't know him > that well I wasn't sure if he'd appreciate the joke so I abandoned the > idea. But that fake test mail still looks very nice in my mailbox ;-) . If I saw such joke, I would likely have asked GNU admins to close my account on GNU machines. I'm already getting much more spam to that address than valid e-mails, including all mailing lists I'm subscribed to. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
Hi Pavel, On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 10:28, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > Anyway, this is not the only project I participate in and from what I see > it is quite possible to manage effectively a project the size of MC with > 2-3 developers and a bunch of contributors. So it is not the lack of > developers - it must be something else. You're going into semantics here. So ok, the problem is not the number of developers but the number of contributors. Not the kind of distinction that is useful to make on a list of non native speakers. > And > also one should not complain for the lack of developers and in the same > time ignore possible contributors - yes, this happens for quite some time. Could you be more specific? Which possible contributors have been ignored? And if so, wasn't that because of lack of developer/contributor time? I read most mails, but I just don't have time to investigate them all. And if I may be so unfriendly, it seems all you have time for these days is bitching and moaning, instead of doing something constructive like reviewing or cooking up patches ;-/ . > And yes - start filling the bugzilla with your RFEs/bugreports. At least > this way there will be a record for them for the time being and they won't > be forgotton - eventually someone will fix them. Or close them "Wont fix" ;-PP . CU, Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
Hi, On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:53, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > The best joke, IMO, is the fact that the release of MC 4.6.1 is going > > to happen real soon now for two and a half years. > > > that's indeed a sad joke ... :( Yeah. I almost sent out an April fools prank mail announcing the release of 4.6.1 with Pavel Roskin's address as the sender. As I don't know him that well I wasn't sure if he'd appreciate the joke so I abandoned the idea. But that fake test mail still looks very nice in my mailbox ;-) . Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
Hello, On Thu, 19 May 2005, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 10:37:25AM +0300, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > > Do you care to explain which statement of proski do you refer to ? > > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/mc-devel/2003-October/msg00036.html > the last sentence. imo it clearly says "we have too little time". > you otoh seemed to claim "we don't know what to do with our time", > which you now effectively refuted. i knew this before and that's why i > called your somewhat strange statement a joke. I don't understand very well the last two sentences. Please, explain. Anyway, this is not the only project I participate in and from what I see it is quite possible to manage effectively a project the size of MC with 2-3 developers and a bunch of contributors. So it is not the lack of developers - it must be something else. It is true that if there were more developers it would be much better but I don't think that people involved in MC development should blame MC problems to the lack of developers. And also one should not complain for the lack of developers and in the same time ignore possible contributors - yes, this happens for quite some time. And yes - start filling the bugzilla with your RFEs/bugreports. At least this way there will be a record for them for the time being and they won't be forgotton - eventually someone will fix them. ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 10:37:25AM +0300, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > Do you care to explain which statement of proski do you refer to ? > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/mc-devel/2003-October/msg00036.html the last sentence. imo it clearly says "we have too little time". you otoh seemed to claim "we don't know what to do with our time", which you now effectively refuted. i knew this before and that's why i called your somewhat strange statement a joke. > The best joke, IMO, is the fact that the release of MC 4.6.1 is going > to happen real soon now for two and a half years. > that's indeed a sad joke ... :( -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
Hello, On Wed, 18 May 2005, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 11:56:15AM +0300, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > > And no - MC is not short on developers. IMHO, MC is short on ideas > > where to go next . > > > that's probably the best joke i heard in years. ;) > it's 100% contradicting proski's statement from some months back. > but as you seem to suffer from boredom, you'll certainly happily and > timely implement all my feature requests i'll shortly insert into > bugzilla (not that i haven't posted them before, but heck). ;) Do you care to explain which statement of proski do you refer to ? The best joke, IMO, is the fact that the release of MC 4.6.1 is going to happen real soon now for two and a half years. And by the way - I have been fixing various MC issues if you failed to notice. ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 11:56:15AM +0300, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > And no - MC is not short on developers. IMHO, MC is short on ideas > where to go next . > that's probably the best joke i heard in years. ;) it's 100% contradicting proski's statement from some months back. but as you seem to suffer from boredom, you'll certainly happily and timely implement all my feature requests i'll shortly insert into bugzilla (not that i haven't posted them before, but heck). ;) -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
Hi Pavel, (Could you please adjust your clock? I missed your post as it is dated 6 years back so it ended up somewhere down in my list.) On Tue, 1999-05-18 at 10:56, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > This is a pure off topic message. I was trying to explain my motivations for closing that bug report to Felix. I did that in the appropriate bug report which is also CC-ed to this list. Sure I could have mailed him privately, but I felt I should publicly explain my actions. > On Tue, 17 May 2005, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > > There are at least 2 people who share this opinion, as *I* (not Oswald) was > > the one to close the bug. > > Well, don't you think that having an opinion requires you to > understand the problem first ? Your opinion is based only on a comment > from Oswald. Should we now start a topic about who is trustworthy and who is > not ? I personally prefer to rely on someone's trustworthyness as a last > option. So I trusted Oswald's opinion on this matter. He never stated fixing this problem is impossible, but that it's rather difficult. Because I don't see that issue fixed soon I decided to close that report. I also clearly indicated multiple times that if people have patches to submit they are welcome to reopen the report. I'm just trying to close out some of the bugs that I don't expect to be fixed soon. This way I hope to get a better overview of the issues that need to be fixed. > > What I am trying to achieve is to separate the wheat from the chaf. I don't > > think anyboy will be looking at this issue soon, we are short on developers > > - > > when was the last time *you* reviewed or submitted a patch? - hence I closed > > this bug, so it's easier for me to see the forest through the trees. Same > > happened for a report from Roland, a valued and active developer, because > > his > > report was so closely related to another bug that they should probably be > > fixed in conjunction. > > I bow before you, mighty Leo and Roland. Thank you mighty MC gods! You must misunderstand the above paragraph. What I indicated to Felix is that he is not the only one suffering from me closing bugs, but Roland (the valued and active developer ;) ) as well. And yes, I know that paragraph sounds a bit arrogant, but hey, I have been doing a lot of work on mc in the last 12 months and I didn't quite appreciate Felix's attitude of big mouthing people about issues he clearly has even less understanding about than I do. And on the matter of Roland's actions that you do not always seem to appreciate: I agreed with you that it's probably better if Roland would work on the viewer in a separate branch, and I stated that in a mail to this list. But just as you I can't force him to do just that. I would appreciate it if you would try to distinguish between his and my actions. I don't feel I'm responsible for his (whether they are good or bad). And yes, although I do not always agree with his actions and methods I do value his commitment and effort. > When you ask for patches first think whether are you going to review them. ? I closed that bug as I don't expect any patches to pop up any time soon, but they are very welcome. Why do you think I am touching bugzilla in the first place? > And no - MC is not short on developers. IMHO, MC is short on ideas where > to go next . Well if that is the case then why are there still so many open issues in bugzilla that nobody seems to address? > So, Leo thank you one more time for excercising you newly granted rights > on Savannah. I wonder if it was the lack of rights that prevented you in > the past from active participation in Savannah bugs database. I've been touching a lot of bugs and closing out a couple of fixed and duplicated entries. So I made a judgement with which you don't agree on one of them. I'm sorry about that, but I've already indicated that I'll reopen that bug if that makes a difference (either to you or the reporter). But for practical purposes that won't really matter. Regarding my overzealousness to close bugs in bugzilla, you might want to ask around in the Fedora fora if there are any complaints about my behaviour wrt RedHat/Fedora bugzilla (try #fedora-bugs or #fedora-devel). I've closed the occasional bug there that I shouldn't have closed but I don't believe I ever offended people by making such a mistake. I'm sorry I offended you. You must see all this in the light of having to break some eggs to make an omelet. And no irreversible harm has been done by me closing that bug report. You have noticed I might be a bit zealous in closing out bugs but I believe until now I've taken good care about doing commits to CVS, which I believe is what really matters. Bugzilla is a tool to help development you know. > It's > also cool that Roland have CVS commit access because otherwise we woldn't > be able to benefit from his valuable contributions. That's a beef you have to take up with him. If you don't appreciate his commits please discuss that
[OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
Hello, This is a pure off topic message. On Tue, 17 May 2005, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > There are at least 2 people who share this opinion, as *I* (not Oswald) was > the one to close the bug. Well, don't you think that having an opinion requires you to understand the problem first ? Your opinion is based only on a comment from Oswald. Should we now start a topic about who is trustworthy and who is not ? I personally prefer to rely on someone's trustworthyness as a last option. > What I am trying to achieve is to separate the wheat from the chaf. I don't > think anyboy will be looking at this issue soon, we are short on developers - > when was the last time *you* reviewed or submitted a patch? - hence I closed > this bug, so it's easier for me to see the forest through the trees. Same > happened for a report from Roland, a valued and active developer, because his > report was so closely related to another bug that they should probably be > fixed in conjunction. I bow before you, mighty Leo and Roland. Thank you mighty MC gods! When you ask for patches first think whether are you going to review them. And no - MC is not short on developers. IMHO, MC is short on ideas where to go next . So, Leo thank you one more time for excercising you newly granted rights on Savannah. I wonder if it was the lack of rights that prevented you in the past from active participation in Savannah bugs database. It's also cool that Roland have CVS commit access because otherwise we woldn't be able to benefit from his valuable contributions. ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
