reassign 553529 xscreensaver-data-extra quit On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Daniel Dickinson <crazycsh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 04:05:10 +0000 > "Jose Luis Rivas" <josel...@rivco.net> wrote: > >> Severity 553529 wishlist >> Quit >> >> Haha. This is a problem between the chair and the keyboard, this is >> not a RC bug. ;-) >> > > This isn't funny. I have had users mistakenly reboot because they > didn't know any better. For a *default* screensaver on a system that is > supposed to be used by people who won't know any better, this *is* an > RC bug. I'm bumping the severity, and am quite willing to take this to > the next level. > > If were not a *default* screensaver I wouldn't be worried, but I have > had upset users, and I don't blame them. Even I had a moment of panic > the first time it happened to me. It may be a 'joke' but it's from UI > point of view it's RC. It doesn't matter that the programming is > between the chair and the keyboard rather than the computer. It's a > natural reaction to see the computer die badly, especially given what > happens to Windows computers under such circumstances.
It's not a RC, it may be an *important* bug but not a RC. It's *not* installed by default, is on xscreensaver-data-extra which you have to manually install yourself. Again, is not installed by default. It's a RC bug? Let's take some already big bugs that really rendered to data loss but because of user actions: rm -rf /. [0] Even in that case it was not a grave bug but a *wishlist* bug, because it wasn't an issue on the app side but on the user side. It does the package make you lose information? Or your overreaction? Yes, is the second so is not on the package part but on the user and you can't report a bug against an user. Plus, is the intended behavior, the package was made on that sense, that's what the screensaver is supposed to do. So it's not a bug but a feature! About why it may be an "important severity bug" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If your reasoning is good and users overreaction to expected behavior of the app counts as bugs then it should be important instead of grave. The simple reason is because doesn't renders to data loss for every the users but only to the users that are used to press reset button before moving the mouse or pressing a key. > > And yes, I'm quite willing to take this the CTTE. Well, I already asked for advice on #debian-devel and most of their solutions was to close this bug and tell you to uninstall the package xscreensaver-data-extra. I'm being nice and I'm willing to unmark it by default, I never said I was not going to customize it so your users wouldn't complain, but I'm *not* willing to receive any kind of threats. And really, *is not even a bug!*. [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/coreutils/+bug/174283 -- Jose Luis Rivas. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. GPG 0xCACAB118 0x7C4DF50D http://joseluisrivas.net/acerca - http://ghostbar.ath.cx/about -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
