Le mercredi 10 mai 2006 à 16:41 -0700, Keith Curtis a écrit : > I wrote software for over a decade and worked with many testers and I > know that rejecting a bug against the person who went to the trouble > of isolating and filing the bug isn't good either. When a bug gets > rejected and forgotten about, the knowledge gets lost.
That's why I advise you to file it upstream which is the right place > Yes, I definitely agree you guys have lots of bugs to fix, but just > because you are buried in bugs doesn't mean you should start rejecting > them. It might make you feel better, but it doesn't make the codebase > any better. As said we have to that much interest to keep coding tasks, we mainly do integration work and bug fixing, new feature are usually done upstream > You tell me to file a bug upstream, but then shouldn't this bug stay > around? Are you saying that bugs with upstream links should be > rejected? Not, but they have basically the same effect "it's not for Ubuntu", we pass the bug at the right place and let them decide what they want to do with it. The issue with your bug is that it mixes issue for different packages, it's not as easy as you think and I'm reluctant to forward a bug that looks like a "rant" about totem-gstreamer because that's not the best way to deal with upstream > I would open a bug upstream if I knew for sure it happened there. Who > added goom to totem--Debian or Gnome? Nobody, goom is an effect shipped by xine-lib as said previously. It happens than gst-plugins-good0.10 also has a goom implementation > I don't know why you keep saying this bug is a collection of different > issues. * "I only get one, rather than the 4 which ships with totem-xine." That's one wishlist "please code new visual effect for gstreamer" * "The zoom 1:2, 1:1, 2:1 doesn't seem to do anything." That's a "zoom is not working" bug. I'm not sure if the zoom is supposed to apply to visual effects though, in which case it should be unsensitive which is still a small bug * "The version of goom isn't nearly as good as the totem-xine one." That is a maybe true but non useful statement. How is it no good. Is that a speed issue? A graphical issue? What is not right about it? What would you want to get changed? Better speed? Extra details? Other implementation detail? > Would it make you feel better if I filed it as 2 bugs? Or would you > just reject those as well? A wishlist for coding new effects would be accepted and forwarded upstream A bug about the zoom issue would be investigateed An another "goom isn't nearly as good" with no description of what you expect would be rejected, if you describe it the way I explained before we will forward it upstream > the point about sabdfl is that I'll bet he wouldn't consider this a > 'pie in the sky' wishlist feature. Maybe, maybe not ... -- Visualization options are worse than totem-xine https://launchpad.net/bugs/43319 -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
