Re: migrating gtk

On 5 February 2018 at 13:19, Morten Welinder <mortenw gnome org> wrote:
Considering that you usually stop short of the first step I have to
ask you: what kind of "busywork" have you ever experienced?

Here's a sample:

Yes, that was you.  What did you really gain from asking that
question, other than verifying that I read my email?

I gained the fact that you read your email and if you're still
experiencing the issue, or if it was accidentally fixed in the ~4
years between your original report and me going through the open bugs
of gobject-introspection. That's why it was marked as NEEDINFO.

As soon as you replied, the bug was reinstated as NEW and will be
migrated to the gobject-introspection repository on

The more typical sample -- not recently practiced by gtk+ -- is mass
moving of bugs into NEEDINFO with a note saying something like
"This bug was reported for version x.y. Please test if it still applies.  If
we get no response, this bug will be closed in 30 days."

Which is what Matthias has said we're going to do in the email you
replied to — and it's also implied in the NEEDINFO state as it's used
by GNOME projects.

The reason I call that busywork is that you can actually do as asked
only to repeat the whole thing in a year when no-one has looked at
in the meantime.  And repeat it a year after that.  And multiply all that
by the number of open bugs you have.

Oh, I'm sorry you're *so* inconvenienced by volunteers trying to get
the bug count under control, and cannot replicate every single set up
from 5 years ago.

Quite frankly, the rational response to such periodic requests is to
simply answer "the bug is still there" without going through the work
of checking.

So, you're basically just making shit up?

That's *really* great to know, because now I won't feel compelled at
all to act on bug reports coming from you.

Next time, either don't bother, or just be a decent human being, and
answer "I don't know".

 That's rational for the bug reporter because it preserves
the investment of time that was put into reporting the bug without
spending more maintaining an large portfolio of open bugs.

That's the "rational" thing to do if you're just abusing the ecosystem
you're taking advantage of.

Again, that's a great thing to know.

Of course it is, that's why we generally don't do that — except,
maybe, for rude bug reporters.

You really don't like to be called out, do you?  (And, yes, I know I am
occasionally and deliberately rude.  The email you responded to was
not rude; it's just that you don't take criticism well, if at all.)

Your behaviour on this mailing list, and on Bugzilla, has been
consistently rude, inconsiderate, and plain abusive of the patience
and effort that volunteers put in the platform you're consuming.

You've been called out before, multiple times, about this.

Of course, you can now spin it the way you want it, and say it's me
that doesn't like being called out. I'll just remember it for the next
time you open a bug, explaining what *I* have to do, without even
bothering to attach a patch. Or reply "this bug still exists" without
testing it, because you're too busy with your own stuff.


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:
On 4 February 2018 at 20:52, Morten Welinder <mortenw gnome org> wrote:
As a general principle, you should only ask bug reporters to do work if you
intend to do something with the answer.  Or, with other words, it really is
not nice to keep asking "is that bug still there?" until they get tired of the
busywork and leave in disgust.

The busywork meaning "attaching a patch and iterating over it"?
Considering that you usually stop short of the first step I have to
ask you: what kind of "busywork" have you ever experienced?

Of course if we get a positive response that the bug is still there
we're going to migrate it and keep track of it.

With that in mind, I believe it is much nicer to just leave the old bugs there.

The old bugs will be left there, but closed, so we don't need to check
two bug lists, and split the maintenance resources even more.

We never got around to solving the reporter's problem, but at least we did
not add to the pain by asking them to do work and report back, only to
ignore the result of that.  Doing that is quite rude.

Of course it is, that's why we generally don't do that — except,
maybe, for rude bug reporters.


[@] ebassi []

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]