Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
- From: Leonard den Ottolander <leonard den ottolander nl>
- To: MC Devel <mc-devel gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [bug #12223] shift keys should change function menu descriptions
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 21:03:18 +0200
(Could you please adjust your clock? I missed your post as it is dated 6
years back so it ended up somewhere down in my list.)
On Tue, 1999-05-18 at 10:56, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> This is a pure off topic message.
I was trying to explain my motivations for closing that bug report to
Felix. I did that in the appropriate bug report which is also CC-ed to
this list. Sure I could have mailed him privately, but I felt I should
publicly explain my actions.
> On Tue, 17 May 2005, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > There are at least 2 people who share this opinion, as *I* (not Oswald) was
> > the one to close the bug.
> Well, don't you think that having an opinion requires you to
> understand the problem first ? Your opinion is based only on a comment
> from Oswald. Should we now start a topic about who is trustworthy and who is
> not ? I personally prefer to rely on someone's trustworthyness as a last
So I trusted Oswald's opinion on this matter. He never stated fixing
this problem is impossible, but that it's rather difficult. Because I
don't see that issue fixed soon I decided to close that report. I also
clearly indicated multiple times that if people have patches to submit
they are welcome to reopen the report.
I'm just trying to close out some of the bugs that I don't expect to be
fixed soon. This way I hope to get a better overview of the issues that
need to be fixed.
> > What I am trying to achieve is to separate the wheat from the chaf. I don't
> > think anyboy will be looking at this issue soon, we are short on developers -
> > when was the last time *you* reviewed or submitted a patch? - hence I closed
> > this bug, so it's easier for me to see the forest through the trees. Same
> > happened for a report from Roland, a valued and active developer, because his
> > report was so closely related to another bug that they should probably be
> > fixed in conjunction.
> I bow before you, mighty Leo and Roland. Thank you mighty MC gods!
You must misunderstand the above paragraph. What I indicated to Felix is
that he is not the only one suffering from me closing bugs, but Roland
(the valued and active developer ;) ) as well. And yes, I know that
paragraph sounds a bit arrogant, but hey, I have been doing a lot of
work on mc in the last 12 months and I didn't quite appreciate Felix's
attitude of big mouthing people about issues he clearly has even less
understanding about than I do.
And on the matter of Roland's actions that you do not always seem to
appreciate: I agreed with you that it's probably better if Roland would
work on the viewer in a separate branch, and I stated that in a mail to
this list. But just as you I can't force him to do just that. I would
appreciate it if you would try to distinguish between his and my
actions. I don't feel I'm responsible for his (whether they are good or
bad). And yes, although I do not always agree with his actions and
methods I do value his commitment and effort.
> When you ask for patches first think whether are you going to review them.
? I closed that bug as I don't expect any patches to pop up any time
soon, but they are very welcome. Why do you think I am touching bugzilla
in the first place?
> And no - MC is not short on developers. IMHO, MC is short on ideas where
> to go next .
Well if that is the case then why are there still so many open issues in
bugzilla that nobody seems to address?
> So, Leo thank you one more time for excercising you newly granted rights
> on Savannah. I wonder if it was the lack of rights that prevented you in
> the past from active participation in Savannah bugs database.
I've been touching a lot of bugs and closing out a couple of fixed and
duplicated entries. So I made a judgement with which you don't agree on
one of them. I'm sorry about that, but I've already indicated that I'll
reopen that bug if that makes a difference (either to you or the
reporter). But for practical purposes that won't really matter.
Regarding my overzealousness to close bugs in bugzilla, you might want
to ask around in the Fedora fora if there are any complaints about my
behaviour wrt RedHat/Fedora bugzilla (try #fedora-bugs or
#fedora-devel). I've closed the occasional bug there that I shouldn't
have closed but I don't believe I ever offended people by making such a
mistake. I'm sorry I offended you.
You must see all this in the light of having to break some eggs to make
an omelet. And no irreversible harm has been done by me closing that bug
report. You have noticed I might be a bit zealous in closing out bugs
but I believe until now I've taken good care about doing commits to CVS,
which I believe is what really matters. Bugzilla is a tool to help
development you know.
> also cool that Roland have CVS commit access because otherwise we woldn't
> be able to benefit from his valuable contributions.
That's a beef you have to take up with him. If you don't appreciate his
commits please discuss that with him, or here on the list.
I'm glad we had a good talk on ICQ today as I think part of this problem
is a misinterpretation of each others words and actions.
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
] [Thread Prev