[gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-05 Thread Enrico Weigelt
Hi folks, just as I thought, certain folks had their lessons now it's maybe worth contributing someting, it starts again: Critical bugs are simply declared invalid. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180935 Again the old philosophy "what I don't understand is invalid". Obviously my cont

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-05 Thread Hemmann, Volker Armin
On Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > Hi folks, > > just as I thought, certain folks had their lessons now it's > maybe worth contributing someting, it starts again: > Critical bugs are simply declared invalid. > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180935 > > Again the old philoso

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-05 Thread Hans-Werner Hilse
Hi, On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:07:42 +0200 Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > just as I thought, certain folks had their lessons now it's > maybe worth contributing someting, it starts again: > Critical bugs are simply declared invalid. > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180935 >

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-05 Thread felix
I see complaints about the bug reporting style, but no mea culpas. I had an experience with gentoo bugs recently which confirms his experience on a smaller level. The apache ebuilds used to recognize USERDIR to override the default "public_html" value. The 2.4 ebuilds discarded that for no reaso

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-05 Thread Hans-Werner Hilse
Hi, short correction/addition: On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:48:17 +0200 Hans-Werner Hilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] complicated solutions like e.g. using readlink(1) [...] or just throwing in find's "-L" switch. -hwh -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-05 Thread b.n.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: > I filed a bug which was promptly closed > for no good reason, only the bogus answer that the new configuraion > files layout took care of it. I reopened it with a more detailed > description of the problem and included the URL of the apache > documentation which exp

RE: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-05 Thread burlingk
Ok, my two cents on the matter. I am still new enough to the community to be considered an outsider, so here is an outsider's perspective. I hope not to step on toes, but it will probably happen anyway. First: Cosmetic things, i.e. user interface issues, pretty pictures, and things that effec

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so first you went to the wrong bugzilla and made a big fuss. > Then you went to the gentoo-bugzilla and made even more fuss. Yes, I first expected it to be an firefox bug, so I filed the bug there. After I found out that the ff source didn't

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread felix
Complaining TWICE worked. The problem I complained about shouldn't have happened in the first place; someonex fixed something that wasn't broken and made it broken. Your response is absolutely typical of my problem with the gentoo dev community. You misstate a complaint, overreact to it, and app

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread Hemmann, Volker Armin
On Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > so first you went to the wrong bugzilla and made a big fuss. > > Then you went to the gentoo-bugzilla and made even more fuss. > > Yes, I first expected it to be an firefox bug, so I fil

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Hans-Werner Hilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, since your awesome efforts last time, everyone here already > knows you're the most polite bug reporter, absolutely fair and I'm really tired of your boring personal attacks. Can't you come up with some more interesting ? Maybe a polar wea

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > First: Cosmetic things, i.e. user interface issues, pretty > pictures, and things that effect the overall look and feel. > > If they do not stop the program from functioning, they are > not high priority. It may be agitating to look at, bu

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And then ? > > Hope that mozilla-launcher gets repaired by itself ? > > no? but if it works that way, it is not even defective.. It doesn't. Why do you assume it would ? > > Isn't it exactly the job of the bugwranglers to delegate > >

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread Davi
Em Quarta 06 Junho 2007 20:10, Enrico Weigelt escreveu: > * Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Isn't it exactly the job of the bugwranglers to delegate > > > bugs to the responsible persons ? > > > > and bug wranglers are just humans. And humans a) are not perfect > > and b) som

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Davi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > Gentoo's Project needs more people to help in develop, > docs and bugs... =) Well, for me, it seemed quite different - new people are unwelcomed, especially if the come with new/different ideas. > IF this (bugs) are, as YOU said, trivial, go on... Help

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread Hemmann, Volker Armin
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > seems, certain wranglers are for killing bugs of > > > > specific persons ;-O > > > > well, Jakub is very fast closing bugs - and sometimes he closes > > them too fast... this is nothing new - and arguing with him in a > > civil manner usually so

RE: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-06 Thread burlingk
> -Original Message- > From: Enrico Weigelt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:00 AM > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-07 Thread Kent Fredric
> > Bug reports need to be thorough. If they do not provide enough > > information to reproduce a bug, or at least explain exactly what is > > going on, then it is hard for the developers and bug > squashers to do > > anything about it. > > Sometimes, as the reported, you miss some important thin

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-07 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm some bit confused that the wranglers should do such decisions > > at all (if they're not also involved in the affected package). > > because it is their job to filter out noise so 'real' devs can > concentrate on the 'real' bugs. They ar

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-07 Thread Hans-Werner Hilse
Hi, On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:03:52 +0200 Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, since your awesome efforts last time, everyone here already > > knows you're the most polite bug reporter, absolutely fair and > > I'm really tired of your boring personal attacks. In fact, it was the fi

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-07 Thread Hemmann, Volker Armin
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm some bit confused that the wranglers should do such decisions > > > at all (if they're not also involved in the affected package). > > > > because it is their job to filter out noise so

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-07 Thread b.n.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: > Complaining TWICE worked. Is it so bad? I'd say complaining ten times would be bad, but twice seems a reasonable number of attempts. > The problem I complained about shouldn't > have happened in the first place; someonex fixed something that wasn't > broken and m

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-07 Thread b.n.
Enrico Weigelt ha scritto: > No, I'm not the one who teaches anyody. I go my way, if you > like it, feel free to follow me, if you don't like it, > go you own but leave me alone. So don't expect anyone to like you, if you don't teach anyone what do you think and...--> > I've shown several prob

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On 6/8/07, b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, I tell you a secret: even with all its quirks and defects, Gentoo has one of the more friendly and helpful communities in the OSS world. Try have a look at the Debian, OpenBSD or Slackware forums/ml/IRC channels, and you'll understand. I concur,

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-08 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Kent Fredric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > Imo, provide as much information as possible, describe all > paths of logic, dont assume bugwranglers are psychic. Verbosity > can be your friend. I understand that often there's more information need. But isn't this exactly what the NEEDINFO st

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-08 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > > No, I'm not the one who teaches anyody. I go my way, if you > > like it, feel free to follow me, if you don't like it, > > go you own but leave me alone. > > So don't expect anyone to like you, if you don't teach anyone what do > you think and...--> h

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-08 Thread b.n.
Enrico Weigelt ha scritto: > I'd prefer telling people what I (personally) believe it's good/right > and give them the chance to either take or leave it. Both decisions > will have their consequences, but nobody can tell which one is > objectively better - evryhing's subjective. [...] > I don't f

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-08 Thread b.n.
Kent Fredric ha scritto: > On 6/8/07, b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ( probably releated to it being a > generally harder distro to use that *cough* ewwbuntu *cough* > unlinspired *cough* or *cough* deadrat *cough* ) OT: Ubuntu distros (Kubuntu, expecially) are really, really shiny and slick p

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-08 Thread Hemmann, Volker Armin
On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, b.n. wrote: > Kent Fredric ha scritto: > > On 6/8/07, b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ( probably releated to it being a > > generally harder distro to use that *cough* ewwbuntu *cough* > > unlinspired *cough* or *cough* deadrat *cough* ) > > OT: Ubuntu distros (Kubunt

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-08 Thread b.n.
Enrico Weigelt ha scritto: > I understand that often there's more information need. But isn't > this exactly what the NEEDINFO status is for ? You don't understand that perhaps the wrangler does not understand that needs more info! If he has a partial/distorted view of the bug, you can't expect

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-09 Thread Kent Fredric
On 6/9/07, b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kent Fredric ha scritto: > On 6/8/07, b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ( probably releated to it being a > generally harder distro to use that *cough* ewwbuntu *cough* > unlinspired *cough* or *cough* deadrat *cough* ) OT: Ubuntu distros (Kubuntu, exp

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-11 Thread Iain Buchanan
On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 21:13 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > Genoo > Everything. given Everything = Gentoo + Debian + RedHat + ..., let EverythingElse = Everything - Gentoo; then Gentoo > Everything =~ Gentoo > Gentoo + EverythingElse =~ Gentoo - Gentoo > Gentoo + EveryThingElse - Gentoo =~

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-11 Thread Kent Fredric
On 6/11/07, Iain Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 21:13 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > Genoo > Everything. given Everything = Gentoo + Debian + RedHat + ..., let EverythingElse = Everything - Gentoo; then Gentoo > Everything =~ Gentoo > Gentoo + EverythingElse =~ G

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-12 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > Your problem is: you live in the delusion that if you write thing X, > people immediately understand X and either refuse it or accept it. Isn't there an third state: "I didn't really understand what it's about - please explain" ? Can't speak for others,

Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid

2007-06-12 Thread Kent Fredric
On 6/13/07, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Let's take an different part of life, not computers, take policits. I'm an elected representative. I have to decide lots of things here. Normally somebody brings some proposable we should vote on. Usually we t

[OT] Ubuntu isn't the devil (was: Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid)

2007-06-08 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Friday 08 June 2007, "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid': > On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, b.n. wrote: > > Kent Fredric ha scritto: > > > On 6/8/07, b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [OT] Ubuntu isn't the devil (was: Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid)

2007-06-08 Thread Hemmann, Volker Armin
On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On Friday 08 June 2007, "Hemmann, Volker Armin" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] > > The slowest boot of all > > times? > > My Gentoo boots more slowly, but that's probably related to the large delay > mounting a 3TiB re