Re: [Vala] Dealing with bugs in the compiler

[Thomas Jollans <t jollybox de>]

On 09/09/2012 02:55 PM, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 11:55 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> > PS: I'm not sure what to make of the fact that several bugs I've
> > reported are still "UNCONFIRMED", with no comments, despite including a
> > simple, reproducible test case. They're mostly obscure, so I'm not
> > expecting a quick fix, but a "confirmed" or "cannot reproduce" would
> > still be reassuring. But no worries, guys, I'm not letting lack of
> > feedback stop me.
>
> The distinction between UNCONFIRMED and NEW is rarely used in GNOME
> Bugzilla. It would probably be good to change that, but at the moment,
> lots of bugs in Vala and other GNOME projects are incorrectly marked as
> UNCONFIRMED. Also see last year's mailing list thread¹ on desktop-devel.
>
> The biggest reason why even good bug reports don't always get a timely
> response is simply that we are all quite busy and thus have to focus our
> attention to the most critical bugs. I'm trying to cut down on the
> response time for my part, but it's not always possible.
>
> It's not always obvious how severe a reporter is affected by a
> particular bug. If there is no response to a bug that is blocking your
> project (or requires very ugly workarounds), let us know in a bug
> comment or on IRC.

Hi Jürg,

sure, I figured it was simply a question of chronic lack of manpower.
It's not like anybody is going to really want to go through all the
outstanding bugs and check their status, is it? Either way, thanks for
the great work!
For my part, all that's popped up recently are minor annoyances to me,
and I always try to set the severity sensibly, partly based on how hard
it was to find a workaround.

Regards
Thomas


> ¹ https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-December/msg00039.html