Ned Ludd wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 16:07 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: >> Because it's been broken for ages? Because I've asked the same on the >> bug I've referred to multiple times, as did quite a few other people, >> and the thing is still dead ~3 hours a day? (So uhm, the argument that >> infra doesn't know about is _really_ moot.) Because users complain over >> and over again? Because we are getting tons of duplicate bugs due to >> bugzilla being non-responsive? > > Ok this is basically bitching. Trust me we all know the current state > of things with bugzilla and it's not fun for anybody. I'm sure > however if you practice a little patience I'm sure you will be > quite pleased with the end result.
A little patience? As in half year is not enough? >> Because it's wasting hours of my time >> every day? Because if CVS was in the same state, you'd about have a >> revolution by now? > > I think you might be misunderstanding the role that the council plays. > It's a body for technical matters that effect the mainly "the code". > Daily matters of infrastructure are handled by our infra team naturally. > Funding for hardware is approved by the foundation. Well, I think council should care about things that affect Gentoo as a whole, and apparently that's not just me: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ <snip> The elected Gentoo Council decides on global issues and policies that affect multiple projects in Gentoo. </snip> Broken bugzilla affects every ebuild dev, affects GDP, affects bug wranglers, affects anyone else who's using it to track outstanding project issues. How is this continuous borkage not a global issue that council should discuss? > You must live in that town where spare hardware and administrators > grow on the trees. No, not really. Just that I'd expect kinda more proactive approach than the one demonstrated fex. in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128588#c29 (and a bit more flexible approach to other alternatives, such as HW/hosting offers we've received before) and that have been declined for various strange reasons. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
