Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote: In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub? I did. And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the bug as a real bug... I've seen that happen a few times. IME, jakub is usually right, but whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn. It's possible to wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it, instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices. Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. Sadly, he filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the option to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;) His user interface could be improved Maybe someone should submit a bug report -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote:
In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get
attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong.
Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub?
I did.
And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the
bug as a real bug...
I've seen that happen a few times. IME, jakub is usually right, but
whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn. It's possible to
wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it,
instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices.
Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. Sadly, he
filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the option
to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;)
His user interface could be improved
Maybe someone should submit a bug report
http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
I tried . Critical bug, but was considered 'invalid' by the prayer-wranglers.
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print enNOSPicAMreil [EMAIL PROTECTED][(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Kent Fredric wrote: On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote: In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub? I did. And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the bug as a real bug... I've seen that happen a few times. IME, jakub is usually right, but whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn. It's possible to wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it, instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices. Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. Sadly, he filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the option to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;) His user interface could be improved Maybe someone should submit a bug report http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html I tried . Critical bug, but was considered 'invalid' by the prayer-wranglers. Let me guess, Jakub closed it? LOL Can I also assume he decided to stay? I read he was leaving a while back. Dale :-) :-) :-) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
On 6/9/07, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent Fredric wrote:
On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
Maybe someone should submit a bug report
http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
I tried . Critical bug, but was considered 'invalid' by the
prayer-wranglers.
Let me guess, Jakub closed it? LOL
Can I also assume he decided to stay? I read he was leaving a while back.
Dale
:-) :-) :-)
Lemme be perfectly clear here. Jakub does a very good job of what he
does, and gentoo IMO does suffer a bit when hes not here. Bugs need
wrangling, or the right devs dont get even told they're there, and
Jakub does a legendary job of redirecting them to the right place.
Its like having an email server with only one ingoing email address
and having to get a human to redirect all the mails by hand to the
right inboxes.
He is like gentoo. Not perfect, but better than all the other choices :)
Gentoo does tend to get a little pissy sometimes, but what can you expect =)
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print enNOSPicAMreil [EMAIL PROTECTED][(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Kent Fredric wrote: On 6/9/07, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me guess, Jakub closed it? LOL Can I also assume he decided to stay? I read he was leaving a while back. Dale :-) :-) :-) Lemme be perfectly clear here. Jakub does a very good job of what he does, and gentoo IMO does suffer a bit when hes not here. Bugs need wrangling, or the right devs dont get even told they're there, and Jakub does a legendary job of redirecting them to the right place. Its like having an email server with only one ingoing email address and having to get a human to redirect all the mails by hand to the right inboxes. He is like gentoo. Not perfect, but better than all the other choices :) Gentoo does tend to get a little pissy sometimes, but what can you expect =) Maybe I should clarify a bit. The first part was a joke. I have filed bugs and I have never had one closed that I can recall. I'm clueless about that sort of thing and he still managed to figure mine out. Not sure how he did that though. LOL I subscribe to the dev list and I think that was where I read he was leaving. A LOT, I mean LOT, of people asked him to stay. I didn't but I didn't want him to leave either. Even if he had closed one of my bugs, I still wouldn't. I think replacing him with a bot thing was going to cause a lot of trouble. I read that was their plan at least. So, I agree. He does his job well in my opinion. If I had a few extra brain cells left, I would try to help. Me being on dial-up and my health making me unpredictable to say the least would make that pretty much pointless. Glad you stayed Jakub. Hang in there. Dale :-) :-) :-) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Dale wrote: I didn't but I didn't want him to leave either. Dale :-) :-) :-) That should read as I didn't _say anything_ but I didn't want him to leave either. It was to late to be posting much of anything. o_O Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
On Saturday 09 June 2007 15:11:48 Dale wrote: I think replacing him with a bot thing was going to cause a lot of trouble. I read that was their plan at least. The bot doesn't replace him. It shows suggestions for who the right assignee would be based on metadata.xml for the package in question. At least for now. And yes, he did reconsider and decide to stay. -- Bo Andresen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: On Saturday 09 June 2007 15:11:48 Dale wrote: I think replacing him with a bot thing was going to cause a lot of trouble. I read that was their plan at least. The bot doesn't replace him. It shows suggestions for who the right assignee would be based on metadata.xml for the package in question. At least for now. And yes, he did reconsider and decide to stay. Yea, but whatever it would be, a human being has to be better. Computers are nice but they can't do everything, else they could do the wild thing and make faster puters on their own. LOL In that case two Intel systems would create a really nice AMD rig with SATA drives. LOL I better stop that. LOL Dale :-) :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub? Alexander Skwar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Alexander Skwar ha scritto: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub? Don't think so. I understand from this thread he's a tough guy, but if logic and other people support show you're right, is there little he can be but agree (or behave as a complete jerk and ignore facts, his choice - but it is not an excuse for not trying). m. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub? I did. And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the bug as a real bug... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote: In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub? I did. And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized the bug as a real bug... I've seen that happen a few times. IME, jakub is usually right, but whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn. It's possible to wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it, instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices. Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. Sadly, he filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the option to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;) His user interface could be improved -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes it seems, certain wranglers are for killing bugs of specific persons ;-O I don't know. I think it's just Jakub. He's REALLY quick to kill a bug, especially if he doesn't completely understand what the bug is about. This also pisses me off from time to time... Alexander Skwar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 solves that. I'm some bit confused that the wranglers should do such decisions at all (if they're not also involved in the affected package). If you disagree with his decision, simply reopen the bug. And do so over and over again. Alexander Skwar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180935 Again the old philosophy what I don't understand is invalid. Obviously my contributions are unwelcomed, so I closed the bug. Yep, Jakub often has a quite jerky tone. So do a lot of the Gentoo devs. Alexander Skwar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
