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

List:       gtk-devel
Subject:    Re: migrating gtk
From:       Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-02-05 14:15:34
Message-ID: CALnHYQFW1ewPfzGXLh2aML+Codvo1A6YVnwV=0V4vbL_f71DYA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=694627#c7
>
> 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 gitlab.gnome.org.

> 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.

Ciao,
 Emmanuele.

> 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.
>>
>> Ciao,
>>  Emmanuele.



-- 
https://www.bassi.io
[@] ebassi [@gmail.com]
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list

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