I don't have time for this if you really want to keep open a BZ issue for a feature no one is working on, I am OK with that.
I will try to avoid updating the state of my bug reports from now on to avoid these threads that you seem to like so much. Pedro. ----- Messaggio originale ----- > Da: Rob Weir > > On May 6, 2013, at 8:03 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> ----- Messaggio originale ----- >>> Da: Rob Weir >> ... >>> The fact that you wrote the issue initially is not relevant to whether >>> the issue is marked "won't fix" or not. That field is > not for >>> entering your personal opinion. It is for expressing the project's >>> consensus for how the issue is handled. Of course, you are welcome to >>> enter your personal opinion as a comment. >> >> It is my personal and technical opinion that it should be labelled WONT >> FIX. If your expert opinion is different I encourage you to grab the issue >> and *then* reopen it. If the project is really lucky you can even prove me >> wrong ;) >> > > Then I invite you to provide a technical explanation for this rather > than the "it seems that no one is interested in this" comment that you > gave when you closed the issue. You must agree that this was not a > technical reason. Nor was it one when you said you closed it because > you didn't want to receive notifications about it, nor was it a > technical justification when you said you didn't want someone to > accidentally commit it, nor when you suggested that you were > withdrawing permission to use the patch. After spending much time > reading your comments I still have no clue what exactly your technical > concerns are. > > As you wrote initially in the issue, this is only a prototype. I think > it is clear that it was not finished work. I don't think someone would > accidentally commit it as-is. But if you think additional caveats are > warranted then please add them as comments to the issue. That's where > they belong. That's where they will do the most good. But if the > reason for the issue remains valid, i.e., that Boost has faster stats > code than what we have now, then the issue itself should remain open. > > Of course if you were in error in your earlier analysis, and Boost is > not faster then by all means give that explanation and mark the issue > as INVALID. But please don't give a comment of "no one seems > interested" and then starting deleting stuff. What we have in BZ is > an important record of issues and opportunities in the code and > marking something "Won't Fix" when the underlying issue is still > valid > is not right. > > Regards, > > Rob > > >>> >>>> I guess will only comment on the withdrawn patch: >>>> >>>> The withdrawal doesn't have anything to do with how long the >>>> patch has been available, I just don't think it should be >>>> committed by accident. >>>> >>>> Last time I knew, the ASF policy is not to take anything that the >>>> >>>> author (me in this case) doesn't want taken so I expect if > someone >>>> wants it he/she can ask me about it and I may even give one or two >>>> new hints about it :). >>> >>> This is true for non-committers. But committers have submitted an >>> ICLA and have already promised, in writing, that when they offer >>> patches that the ASF has permission to use the code. I'd recommend >>> thinking carefully about reneging on that promise. If your issue is >>> only whether someone commits your patch without review then I >>> recommend that you explain that in a comment to the issue. >> >> The icla applies to my contributions to the project and it is perfectly >> valid since the moment I signed it, that hasn't changed. >> >> Do keep in mind that if I had thought it was a good idea to commit >> the patch I would have just done it, like I did with so many patches >> before. >> >> After thinking about it for a while I think I was right not to commit it >> in the first place. I still think the issue should be labelled WONT FIX. >> >> The patch is withdrawn for good reasons but if you want to spend time >> on it be my guest, and yes the project has permission to use my patch >> under ALv2. >> >> Pedro. >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
