On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 12:47 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 01/18/2011 09:44 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >> --- Comment #4 from Warren Togami<[email protected]> 2011-01-17 22:20:21
> >> UTC ---
> >> This isn't fixed until it is pushed to the sa-update channel.
> >
> > I don't want to start an edit-war, so I keep the bug in the REOPENED
> > state. However, I *do* want to clarify that sentence as-is is wrong.
> >
> > Resolved FIXED means in code.
> >
> > The equivalent, a bug targeted for $release, is resolved once the code
> > is in the appropriate branch, and voting has been done if required. It
> > does not remain open until an actual release.
>
> Please pardon me, but I must respectfully disagree that we should
> consider this "FIXED" if it is fixed in code. I understand where you
> are coming from.
It appears you did not carefully read my full post. The general picture
changes in the paragraphs you omitted to quote.
The above is correct, and I stand to what I have written. Moreover, this
particular bug itself is resolved -- unless there's another bug blocking
it, like the broken ability to publish rule updates. My entire comment
was rather generic, and I believe applies to all bug-tracking systems
out there.
> While I personally am not effected by this issue (no
> Russian users), I fear such a status could be confusing and upsetting to
> the user who submitted this bug report and others effected by the issue
> who look at the bug report.
I am used to explain these facts and workflow to users. I don't think
the concept would be news to you, dude. :)
Lagging of a few days pushing the re-cut due to dev resources should not
keep the bug open.
> In any case, I looked at update-rules-3.3 as JM suggested would work. I
> think I know how it works. But I dare not run it without clarification
> from JM (which server to run it upon, what user, what directory) because
> I don't want to screw up the production sa-update channel. I haven't
> heard back from JM.
So the process needs to be documented better? In this case, we would
need instructions for tarball surgery, toning down a score, and manually
push the result.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
