Thanks anyway. You are welcome to do what you wish with my firefox bugs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I dutifully re-checked each bug.
1. I did't see comments for each of your bugs saying "it's still
relevant for version X of iceweasl".
2. The comments you did mail were doing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Meaning neither the maintainer nor I were aware of your response. I had
to
I dutifully re-checked each bug.
Today I got another pile in my mailbox to recheck.
I did not check if they were the ones I had just rechecked.
I instead just gave up.
This is the Bank. You have 60 days to respond that you still want the
money in your account.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, peter green wrote:
>> We encourage people to not file duplicate bug reports, and check the BTS
>> first. So I check the BTS, the bug is there, I don't file a new one (I
>> do send a "me too"). 6 weeks later, the bug is closed because the
>> submitter's email is bouncing and he'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
peter green wrote:
> It sounds like what is really required is the ability for a bug to have
> multiple "reporters" recorded. Then any queries about a bug can be sent to
> all the reporters not just the one who happened to submit the report
> first.
W
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 05:15:51PM +0100, peter green wrote:
> >We encourage people to not file duplicate bug reports, and check the BTS
> >first. So I check the BTS, the bug is there, I don't file a new one (I
> >do send a "me too"). 6 weeks later, the bug is closed because the
> >submitter's emai
We encourage people to not file duplicate bug reports, and check the BTS
first. So I check the BTS, the bug is there, I don't file a new one (I
do send a "me too"). 6 weeks later, the bug is closed because the
submitter's email is bouncing and he's on vacation anyway.
It sounds like what is really
10am Friday sounds good to me, many thanks for sorting this Patrick
Pete
On 2 Oct 2007, at 20:09, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:25:21PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
Of course, the question is how to determine what's an upstream
bug. Perhaps
we could still receive reports
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:21:18AM +, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Pierre Habouzit dies 03/10/2007 hora 21:49:
> > *g* found exists and is versionned, since sth like a year now. if not
> > two.
>
> But is the submitter of the "found" information made easily available?
> At least it's not sh
Scribit Pierre Habouzit dies 03/10/2007 hora 21:49:
> *g* found exists and is versionned, since sth like a year now. if not
> two.
But is the submitter of the "found" information made easily available?
At least it's not shown anywhere in the version graph.
Curiously,
Pierre
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 04:47:50PM +, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Pierre Habouzit dies 02/10/2007 hora 20:16:
> > Confirmed is not versionned. The fact that it was confirmed at one
> > point does not means that the bug is still here.
>
> Wouldn't a generic found-by be useful? Then the bug
On Wed October 3 2007 3:00:00 am Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:27:15AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mardi 02 octobre 2007 à 18:01 -0500, John Goerzen a écrit :
> > > No, that is a lot of manual work.
> > >
> > > I mean something like:
> > >
> > > $ bug-forward 456789
Scribit Pierre Habouzit dies 02/10/2007 hora 20:16:
> Confirmed is not versionned. The fact that it was confirmed at one
> point does not means that the bug is still here.
Wouldn't a generic found-by be useful? Then the bug could contain the
information about not only the versions where the bug wa
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:27:40PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I don't miss the point, you miss the fact that the way exists, and is
> marking the bug as "found" in a specific version. It's not a task that
> only the submitter can perform, the maintainer can do that, and it will
> prevent pi
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 11:04:58AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:16:28PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:47:40AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > It might help to do something like use the confirmed tag to flag reports
> > > which can readily be
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:16:28PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:47:40AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It might help to do something like use the confirmed tag to flag reports
> > which can readily be reproduced or which otherwise don't need the
> > submitter to confirm
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:27:15AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 02 octobre 2007 à 18:01 -0500, John Goerzen a écrit :
> > No, that is a lot of manual work.
> >
> > I mean something like:
> >
> > $ bug-forward 456789 bacula
> >
> > and have it Just Work.
>
> When forwarding a bug re
Le mardi 02 octobre 2007 à 18:01 -0500, John Goerzen a écrit :
> No, that is a lot of manual work.
>
> I mean something like:
>
> $ bug-forward 456789 bacula
>
> and have it Just Work.
When forwarding a bug report, the longest task is not opening the bug
itself, which is just a copy&paste; the
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:48:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I don't know about that. Hasn't it been a long-standing policy that bugs
> that get no response from the submitter to questions can be closed?
I know of no such policy.
However, it has been common practice to do that for bugs that
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:49:47AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Juliusz Chroboczek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Also node that many bugs are sometimes hard to reproduce, because you
> > > need a very specific environment that the maintainer not always have
> > > (e.g. the issue I have is th
* Juliusz Chroboczek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Also node that many bugs are sometimes hard to reproduce, because you
> > need a very specific environment that the maintainer not always have
> > (e.g. the issue I have is that as a glibc maintainer, I've no large
> > enough and used pam-ldap o
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007, John Goerzen wrote:
> That involves looking up a username and password in some secure
> storage system for such, logging on to the particular BTS,
> navigating the web form, going to the Debian BTS to pull up the bug,
> copy and pasting each relevant message, creating an upstre
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 6:10:33 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:01:23PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 October 2007 2:09:40 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:25:21PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > Of course, the question is how to
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:01:23PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007 2:09:40 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:25:21PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Of course, the question is how to determine what's an upstream bug.
> > > Perhaps we could still rece
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 2:09:40 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:25:21PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Of course, the question is how to determine what's an upstream bug.
> > Perhaps we could still receive reports in our Debian BTS, but provide
> > some automated tools to
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:25:21PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> Of course, the question is how to determine what's an upstream bug. Perhaps
> we could still receive reports in our Debian BTS, but provide some automated
> tools to send them on to popular types of upstream BTSs, and then close th
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 01 octobre 2007 à 20:00 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit :
> > Since this particular bug is trivial to reproduce (ls ~/.mozilla/firefox/),
> > it would appear that the Firefox maintainers are mass-closing bug
> > reports without even checking what they are about.
* John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 20:47]:
> As a maintainer and a user, I have often wondered lately if the practice of
> tracking numerous upstream bugs in the Debian BTS is something that should
> be ended. We nominally do this out of convenience to our users. However, I
> have found r
> As a maintainer and a user, I have often wondered lately if the practice of
> tracking numerous upstream bugs in the Debian BTS is something that should
> be ended.
Please don't.
I always ask my downstream DDs to forward bugs to me together with the
Debian bug number, and to leave the bug ope
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:47:40AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:11:56AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > So, well, despite all arguments developed by Joey in this thread, I
> > still think that mass pings can really help maintainers in their work,
> > particularly whe
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:25:21 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a maintainer and a user, I have often wondered lately if the practice of
> tracking numerous upstream bugs in the Debian BTS is something that should
> be ended. We nominally do this out of convenience to our users.
On Mon October 1 2007 4:50:10 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 09:34:56PM +, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > What Joey and I are specifically complaining about are three bugs that
> > we have described in enough detail and that are trivial to reproduce.
> > The maintainer did n
On Mon October 1 2007 5:22:24 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 10:02:25PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:57:07PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > Asking *kindly* some help from the submiter, once or t
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 02:48:07PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon October 1 2007 5:22:24 pm Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 10:02:25PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:57:07PM +, Pierre Habouzit
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:11:56AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> So, well, despite all arguments developed by Joey in this thread, I
> still think that mass pings can really help maintainers in their work,
> particularly when someone takes over a package that has been neglected
> for some time
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:02:25AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:57:07PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > Asking *kindly* some help from the submiter, once or twice a
> > > [year], is not an insult.
>
> The insult isn't
Le lundi 01 octobre 2007 à 20:00 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit :
> Since this particular bug is trivial to reproduce (ls ~/.mozilla/firefox/),
> it would appear that the Firefox maintainers are mass-closing bug
> reports without even checking what they are about.
And that is a good thing. If t
On Monday 1 October 2007 22:36, Joey Hess wrote:
> Doesn't this tend to send the message that a bug submitter's time
> is less valuable than the package maintainer's time?
I don't think it does. Their time may be of equivalent value, but the
submitter has a higher probability of being able to rep
On 01/10/07 at 16:36 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Now that the BTS has versionning, one can use the last version with
> > the bug marked as "found" to know if the ping is necessary or not. If
> > it's a BTS feature (and not done by the maintainer themselves) that
> > would
Hi Pierre!
You wrote:
> and _I_ find perfectly sensible that bugs that are opened for say 1
> year, get a "ping" mail to the submitter to say (basically):
>
> heya this bug is opened for [X months], and since last version
> ([VER]) the maintainer uploaded [X] new upstream releases, and
Quoting Juliusz Chroboczek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> What Joey and I are specifically complaining about are three bugs that
> we have described in enough detail and that are trivial to reproduce.
> The maintainer did not send us personal mail asking for help; he sent
> us an automated mass mailing th
Quoting Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> FWIW I don't think a ping should threaten to close the bug. That is
> wrong.
Threaten, no. Suggest that it could be closed, yes.
I personnally assume the concept of being pretty "aggressive" wrt bugs
in packages that have a non manageable amount
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 10:10:35PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:00:22PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > While I realise that it is sometimes difficult to deal with hundreds
> > of old bug reports, there are other ways of dealing with this kind of
> > issue, such as ta
> The insult isn't the request for help. The insult is the implication
> that if there's no response, the bug will be summarily closed with no
> attempt made to see if the problem reported is fixed.
Very well put. That's exactly the bit that got me annoyed.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 10:02:25PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:57:07PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > Asking *kindly* some help from the submiter, once or twice a
> > > [year], is not an insult.
>
> The insult isn't
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:57:07PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Asking *kindly* some help from the submiter, once or twice a
> > [year], is not an insult.
The insult isn't the request for help. The insult is the implication
that if there's no res
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 09:34:56PM +, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> What Joey and I are specifically complaining about are three bugs that
> we have described in enough detail and that are trivial to reproduce.
> The maintainer did not send us personal mail asking for help; he sent
> us an automa
> Also node that many bugs are sometimes hard to reproduce, because you
> need a very specific environment that the maintainer not always have
> (e.g. the issue I have is that as a glibc maintainer, I've no large
> enough and used pam-ldap or NIS setups, and we have some bugs that rot
> because I
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:57:07PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> properly). Asking *kindly* some help from the submiter, once or twice a
> day, is not an insult. And if you don't feel like helping, you can
^^^
eeew I obviously meant year.
And we also could not ping bugs with severity < nor
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> I have 524 open bug reports that I filed in the Debian BTS. What
> percentage of these are you suggesting I be pinged for on a yearly
> basis? Doesn't this tend to send the message that a bug submitter's
> time is less valuable than the package maintainer's t
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:36:51PM +, Joey Hess wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Now that the BTS has versionning, one can use the last version with
> > the bug marked as "found" to know if the ping is necessary or not. If
> > it's a BTS feature (and not done by the maintainer themselves)
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Now that the BTS has versionning, one can use the last version with
> the bug marked as "found" to know if the ping is necessary or not. If
> it's a BTS feature (and not done by the maintainer themselves) that
> would be, say, 2 mails a year (if those are triggered every
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:43:37PM +, Joey Hess wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > later than today on IRC we discussed that, and _I_ find perfectly
> > sensible that bugs that are opened for say 1 year, get a "ping" mail to
> > the submitter to say (basically):
>
> But not if the bug is a se
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> later than today on IRC we discussed that, and _I_ find perfectly
> sensible that bugs that are opened for say 1 year, get a "ping" mail to
> the submitter to say (basically):
But not if the bug is a security bug, and not if the bug is forwarded to
an upstream BTS, where i
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:00:22 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have just received the attached mail. The relevant bit is at the end:
>
>> As this bug is quite old, I intend to close it if you don't update
>> your bug report in the next 6 weeks.
>
>Since this particular bug is
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:08:19PM +, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >> Since this particular bug is trivial to reproduce (ls
> >> ~/.mozilla/firefox/), it would appear that the Firefox maintainers
> >> are mass-closing bug reports without even checking what they are
> >> about.
>
> > Considering
> If you can't find the time to triage old bugs, it's kinda hard to
> convince a volunteer to do it for you.
I am not quite sure what you mean.
Are you saying that in order to submit a bug against a Debian package
without it being summarily closed, I need to be a member of the
development team fo
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:00:22PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> While I realise that it is sometimes difficult to deal with hundreds
> of old bug reports, there are other ways of dealing with this kind of
> issue, such as tagging old bugs when they lack submitter input, or at
> least going th
>> Since this particular bug is trivial to reproduce (ls
>> ~/.mozilla/firefox/), it would appear that the Firefox maintainers
>> are mass-closing bug reports without even checking what they are
>> about.
> Considering that the message which has been sent to you does not close
> the bug, nor does
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Since this particular bug is trivial to reproduce (ls
> ~/.mozilla/firefox/), it would appear that the Firefox maintainers
> are mass-closing bug reports without even checking what they are
> about.
Considering that the message which has been sent t
Dear all,
I have just received the attached mail. The relevant bit is at the end:
> As this bug is quite old, I intend to close it if you don't update
> your bug report in the next 6 weeks.
Since this particular bug is trivial to reproduce (ls ~/.mozilla/firefox/),
it would appear that the Fire
61 matches
Mail list logo
