On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:37 AM, James Cook <azerth...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Pastebin data expires > should read > some Pastebin data expires > > marking it invalid because it `may` expire? maybe you can also mark > them invalid because the user `may` be wrong. If the data expires THEN > mark it invalid and/or RFC it. Sorry the blanket invalidating it is > simply indefensible.
Let's backtrack a bit here and think about what are the possible outcomes of these rules: a) People will say "oh, it's invalid because I used pastebin, let's see how can I improve my bug report so that it gets fixed" b) People will say "oh well, fsck off, I've got better ditros to try" Then there are consequences for both. For a), bug tracking should be easier/more consistent and the user base will be educated during the process. For b), Sabayon will probably lose a share of users because of it's strict bug reporting rules - which is not actually a bad thing on its own because it all depends on the vision of the project. I'm of course no one to talk about what consequences we should aim at, I just wanted to make a point that there's at least one other possible outcome, and we could think about what's the way we want to deal with them. David E. Narváez
