[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: zlib breakage
From:       Mike Frysinger <vapier () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2011-09-25 6:43:38
Message-ID: CAJaTeTorkLqndmMdwxAcOXr6iwTMCoyAv2TqDWuad-pfwKwfZw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 14:18, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:49, Duncan wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, locking a bug to kill the whining is likely to have rather
>>> more negative effects than one might have anticipated.  One would think
>>> comment locking would be a logical enough extension to have been
>>> implemented by now; perhaps this is why it hasn't been.  (Full visibility
>>> locking is of course different, security bugs and all.)
>>
>> i don't see any negative effects so far.
>
> Well, you can probably count the 22 emails preceding this one, and the
> 22 that are sure to follow...

i believe the posts were going to be made regardless.  if i hadn't
shut down the bug temporarily, then it'd have been on there instead.
perhaps after enough time of me saying "no", it'd have come over to
the list anyways.  it's a crap shoot either way.

> User-rel is definitely the appropriate way to handle things like this.
>  There are legitimate technical disagreements over the best way to
> handle this situation, and I can't approve of Nikos's tendency to
> personalize things in the bug.  On the other hand, simply telling him
> to get lost is likely to just lead to more flames/etc.

i'd rather not waste more people's time, but using userrel probably
would have satisfied that desire better than temporarily locking the
bug.
-mike


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]