> Not with the tons of configs I load and the fact that Roassal2 has been 
> moving under my feet.

But do you still stand ? :-)

Is everything okay with Roassal2 config?

Cheers,
Alexandre

> 
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu 
> <mailto:s...@stfx.eu>> wrote:
> 
> > On 30 Jul 2015, at 10:27, p...@highoctane.be <mailto:p...@highoctane.be> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Most of the feedback is "won't fix" or "done in 4.x or 5.x"
> > All nice but hard to look at as day to day work is in 3.0
> 
> You have to move, you are missing out on all the nice stuff !
> 
> Seriously, I understand that you stay at what you know because things are 
> probably already complex enough, but really upgrading is often easier than 
> you think.
> 
> > This effect will only get worse over time I guess.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr 
> > <mailto:marcus.den...@inria.fr>> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will 
> > ever look at.
> > Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
> >
> > If it is just “would be nice”, but not even on a level that you yourself 
> > are willing to even
> > send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to 
> > push the case
> > forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
> >
> > Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a 
> > question not answered
> > for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* 
> > spend the time to fix
> > this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
> >
> > It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important 
> > even for the submitter.
> >
> > Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed… 
> > and the amazing thing
> > is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in 
> > these obvious cases.
> >
> > The issue tracker is not a one way street!
> >
> >         Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to