Re: gnome-shell-list Digest, Vol 63, Issue 9

[Marshall Neill <ramien43 windstream net>]

I just thought 40k in bugs was a bit outrageous. Oh well, just thought 
that pointing out that number should raise a concern.  Guess I really 
don't know what bug is.



On 01/17/2014 08:00 AM, gnome-shell-list-request gnome org wrote:
> Send gnome-shell-list mailing list submissions to
>         gnome-shell-list gnome org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         gnome-shell-list-request gnome org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         gnome-shell-list-owner gnome org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of gnome-shell-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Bugs (Marshall Neill)
>     2. Re: Bugs (Adam Tauno Williams)
>     3. Re: Bugs (Emmanuele Bassi)
>     4. Re: Bugs (Adam Tauno Williams)
>     5. Re: Bugs (Donato Marrazzo)
>     6. Re: Bugs (Emmanuele Bassi)
>     7. Re: Bugs (Adam Tauno Williams)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:08:14 -0600
> From: Marshall Neill <ramien43 windstream net>
> To: gnome-shell-list gnome org
> Subject: Bugs
> Message-ID: <52D92B3E 9010504 windstream net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I have a feeling this will upset the developers but I believe it has to
> be said.,
> I recently read that there are 46,000 bugs in Gnome 3.
> Now I would think logic would dictate that you fix bugs instead of
> implementing new features.
> Seems like the developers are more interested in change than fixing what
> is broken.
> If that logic was applied to automobiles I believe public outcry would
> demand that the vehicles be fixed first.
> Now, new features that no one really asked for are implemented and the
> bugs keep piling up and extensions that worked, don't, themes that
> worked, don't.
> Well, enough of my rant.  I think you can see where I am coming from.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:44:37 -0500
> From: Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam whitemice org>
> To: gnome-shell-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Bugs
> Message-ID: <1389966277 2329 3 camel linux-86wr site>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 07:08 -0600, Marshall Neill wrote:
> > I have a feeling this will upset the developers but I believe it has to
> > be said.,
> > I recently read that there are 46,000 bugs in Gnome 3.
> > Now I would think logic would dictate that you fix bugs instead of
> > implementing new features.
> You misunderstand the concept of "bug".
>
> > Seems like the developers are more interested in change than fixing what
> > is broken.
> Sometimes change fixes what is broken.  Sometimes what is broken is not
> verified to be broken.  Sometimes something that is broken gets reported
> multiple times.  Sometimes what is broken only effects the most exotic
> use cases.  Sometimes what is broken is not a breakage but a request for
> something to be different.  All these account for "bugs".
>
> > If that logic was applied to automobiles I believe public outcry would
> > demand that the vehicles be fixed first.
> Really??? Driven in any major city recently.  The Automobile is broken
> in many many ways.
>
> > Now, new features that no one really asked for are implemented and the
> > bugs keep piling up and extensions that worked, don't, themes that
> > worked, don't.
> Many of those things are maintained individually.  If the maintainer no
> longer maintains it remains broken.  What if you buy a software package
> from a company any that company decides that package is end-of-life ...
> no more fixes for you.  Only in this case you paid nothing, and you have
> the source - so you can fix it yourself, find the project a new
> maintainer, or pay to have it fixed.
>
> > Well, enough of my rant.  I think you can see where I am coming from.
> A misunderstanding of the concept of "bug"?