On or about Friday 15 May 2009 at approximately 05:15:15 Jon Kristian Nilsen
composed:
> This discussion never seems to get old.
>
>
> Thirdly:
> Why are users encouraged to report to the ML and the forums beforehand? I
> don't see any practical reason in having several bit's and pieces of
> info
This discussion never seems to get old.
First of all:
The guidlines is a stub, maybe someone should update it?
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines
I am not saying it doesn't provide enough information, but when people keeps
asking why's and whatnot, maybe it doesnt?
Secon
Damjan Georgievski wrote:
The bug report shouldn't have been closed in the first place, since
the problem was not even solved.
It's worth noting that the people who handle re-open requests are not
necessarily the one assigned to the bug.
I did notice that .. and also I didn't want
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> Sorry to bring this again, but something has to change in the way
> bugs are handled in Arch.
>
> I've open this bug report http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13905 about
> the awesome package in community.
>
> The package maintainer just c
2009/5/14 Angel Velásquez :
>
> Well, sometimes and this time I have to point you Jan (nothing
> personal, you are my hero dude), but, why? see this bug for example
> [0].. You closed it with the reason "works for me" but you didn't
> research a lot, I had this exact problem and I solved it downgra
>> The bug report shouldn't have been closed in the first place, since
>> the problem was not even solved.
>
> It's worth noting that the people who handle re-open requests are not
> necessarily the one assigned to the bug.
I did notice that .. and also I didn't want to attack anybody
personally,
> And another note: when reopening a report, the text of the reopen
> request is added as a comment. It may be a small text area, but it
> does allow for more text than it seems
I didn't know this happens automatically - that's one good thing to know.
--
damjan
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 01:01:30PM -0500, David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. wrote:
>> On or about Thursday 14 May 2009 at approximately 10:50:28 Thomas Bächler
>> composed:
>> > Jan de Groot schrieb:
>> > > The only valid reason I see for closi
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 01:01:30PM -0500, David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. wrote:
> On or about Thursday 14 May 2009 at approximately 10:50:28 Thomas Bächler
> composed:
> > Jan de Groot schrieb:
> > > The only valid reason I see for closing a bug as upstream, is when
> > > upstream made a decision in t
> Now all of the above is just my opinion on the issue and will look
> like a
> bunch of idle rambling to most, but if you sift through it, there just may be
> a perl of wisdom to pick out. (remember, even a blind squirrel finds a nut
> every once in a while ;-)
Lol, a "perl" of wisdom. Co
On or about Thursday 14 May 2009 at approximately 10:50:28 Thomas Bächler
composed:
> Jan de Groot schrieb:
> > The only valid reason I see for closing a bug as upstream, is when
> > upstream made a decision in the software which is reported as bug by the
> > user. An example of this is excluding
Jan de Groot schrieb:
The only valid reason I see for closing a bug as upstream, is when
upstream made a decision in the software which is reported as bug by the
user. An example of this is excluding evince from the menus by using
NoDisplay=True in the .desktop file. This bug is opened now and t
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
>> Sorry to bring this again, but something has to change in the way
>> bugs are handled in Arch.
>>
>> I've open this bug report http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13905 about
>> the
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> Sorry to bring this again, but something has to change in the way
> bugs are handled in Arch.
>
> I've open this bug report http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13905 about
> the awesome package in community.
>
> The package maintainer just c
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 16:42 +0200, ludovic coues wrote:
> for me, a bug tracker is for tracking bug. For an upstream issue, the
> bug is spotted, reported to the bug tracker, and flagged upstream.
> Why it'll be closed at this point ?
>
> While there no patch to correct the bug, the bug is still h
for me, a bug tracker is for tracking bug. For an upstream issue, the
bug is spotted, reported to the bug tracker, and flagged upstream.
Why it'll be closed at this point ?
While there no patch to correct the bug, the bug is still here, and
need to be tracked. So closing a bug report before resolv
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> Sorry to bring this again, but something has to change in the way
> bugs are handled in Arch.
>
> I've open this bug report http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13905 about
> the awesome package in community.
>
> The package maintainer just c
That's a very unfortunate set of misunderstandings. Sorry to hear.
Anyway, so hold out there and things'll get fixed probably. Especially
after this post.
-AT
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
> Sorry to bring this again, but something has to change in the way
> bugs a
Sorry to bring this again, but something has to change in the way
bugs are handled in Arch.
I've open this bug report http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13905 about
the awesome package in community.
The package maintainer just closes the bug, not solving it, claiming
it's upstream, and not even inve
19 matches
Mail list logo
