On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:50:57 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 à 05:41 -0700, Andrew Farris a écrit :
>
>> But what could be gained from trying to solve bugs in software that is long
>> modified to be unrecognizable from the state it was in then...
>
> Packaging problems persist even if the underlying software was updated
> many times.
Maybe, but not necessarily. Lots of packaging issues get solved without a bug
and it may have just been overlooked when it was solved. How is anyone going
to know this without spending an inordinate amount of time deciding if the old
bug still exists? Who is better equipped to do that than the original reporter?
If they don't have time, fine... let the bug get closed.
No, thanks. Too many bugs => "inordinate amount of time" (your theory).
The bot confronts me with a collection of bugs and sets a short
deadline. I regret that I've submitted them. The Fedora School of Bug
Mismanagement teaches me to let them rest in peace this time, because
that's the only way I can avoid fighting against a bot that tries to put
additional work onto my shoulders from time to time. Retest against FC6,
retest against F7, retest against F8, retest against F9. It's insulting.
> Next time do not flood reporters flood component owners (with a
'can we
> close this yes/no ?' if no answer do not close is assumed) since
> component owners are the ones asking to push stuff under the carpet and
> should at least perform some activity to get their wish.
+1
It is the component owners and packagers that already are flooded
with too many
old bugs to get through, now you suggest they get requests for individual
attention on each? That sounds like a great plan for Congress, not for open source.
Now bug reporters are flooded, too. ;)