https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164332
--- Comment #19 from Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> --- (In reply to achim from comment #17) > > Then you have to provide reproduction steps, > I did. You did not. > The real case, when I observed it first, was random. Hence it's nearly > impossible to provide exactly these steps for reproduction. Then, *if* it's still existent (comment 1 ?), then everyone have to wait for such steps. Without these, we should assume either user error, or another software's error (which requires a bug report to that other software). > We're dealing with a complex world. For me it's boring to discuss the > potential occourance of a problem, when we're aware of it. Fine. But "we" aren't. > In my world I'll > try to avoid or fix it, instead of spending life time searching for someone > who is guilty. "Guilty" is a wrong word. Users are not "guilty" in making errors. Developers are not "guilty" in making errors. But we definitely should not fix other softwares' bugs by adding workarounds in our code, which increases complexity, and is prone to new bugs. > Unfortunately I can't fix this one, but help to get used to it. > Please don't blame the user. Please stop blaming others that they "blame users". > The error is always done by the program, because it was told (programmed) to > do so. Just no. The program indeed does what it was "told" to; but that doesn't make *it* do every "error". A hammer hitting one's toe is not *doing* the error in targeting. > May be it's better we stop the discourse here. No it doesn't. We still need to know (1) if it is fixed (then comment 1 was wrong), and if it is not fixed, then (2) if it *needs* fixing (and for that, my arguments hold true). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
