On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 19:02, Bastien Nocera wrote: > Huh? Alex filed this bug when the new libsmbclient-based code had just > been merged. And it took 9 days for me to push it upstream from the > point when you updated it.
Somehow I misread the bug and misremembered history. Sorry. > > That's what I mean when I say unresponsive. > > The code at the time wasn't suitable for bug fixing of any kind, it was > was a gigantic cut'n'paste and not maintainable. That's why I spent time > rewriting it using the libsmbclient API. Which explains the long absences from the bug list. That doesn't mean the bug lists weren't unmaintained for a long time, just that there was a reason. You can be unresponsive for a reason; that's still being unresponsive. It's not necessarily a bad thing, just a fact. And as I said, it's changing now, which is a good thing. > Dude, I should be the one sighing. Try to earn the "developer" of Debian > developer. I am a developer with very little time at the moment, which I why I e-mailed debian-gtk-gnome with the plea for help. > For the other packages I have in Debian and for which I'm > upstream (or one of the upstream like in this case), the developers are > trying to do some investigation before jumping on their high horses and > are polite to me. Never in this exchange have I been less than polite to you. > You're accusing me of not wanting to look into the bugs, [...] For a long while that's exactly what it looked like. Can you fault me for drawing a conclusion about an unmaintained buglist? If bugs had been updated with status, this would never have happened. However, I should not have extended that conclusion forward in time, which is my fault and I'm sorry for it. -- Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Just admit to yourself that you're a thief: http://me.woot.net/stealing.html
