Hi,
well ... I don't want to say I don't appreciate any work to make Fedora better,
but in this case, I think you just haven't done it properly
please take the following just as another point of view, a bit of teasing
Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 21:07:03 CEST, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel
<clydekunkel7...@verizon.net> wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038885
Closed the first time because it's not an F20 bug. As mentioned
in bug 864198 it's intended behavior.
the fact that some behaviour is intended doesn't mean that it is correct and
that it should stay that way forever
in fact, this exact behaviour _should_ change in the future, so it is nice that
someone created a bugzilla record to track the future change - the mere
existence of bug 864198 doesn't make bug 1038885 superfluous, as bug 864198 is
about grubby behaviour and bug 1038885 should have tracked the change in
anaconda
"it's not a F20 bug" is not a reason to close, if F20 is not the target,
instead of closing, you should have changed the target to rawhide (and added RFE,
FutureFeature or whatever marking the anaconda team prefers)
after all, bug 1039124 is marked as such, so why this couldn't have been done
for bug 1038885?
Also closed because the summary ...
so, what prevented you from fixing the summary?
- still not a reason to close
I'd always intended to create a clearly described and explicit
rawhide RFE tracking bug for the issue,
"intention" unfortunately does not count, so someone was faster than you to
file the issue ... if you still preferred to do it your way, you could have said that
explicitly instead of telling the reporter he's doing something incorrectly and you don't
have the time to bother with his help
the reporter simply does not know what your preferred workflow/bug description
and markings are, and reporting what does he experience _in his own words_ is
not incorrect by definition, that's what bugzilla is for (among other things)
and it was impossible to clean up and change your bug into that without
requiring the reader to read 7 comments that have nothing to do with
actually progressing the real problems.
with the subject corrected, I don't think that anyone would have to read *the
description* to see what "the real problem" is
also note that I say "the description" instead "7 comments" as the comment
number one is from you, you could have fixed the bug summary, version etc. at that time, ranting
about seven useless comments now is unfair, a fallacy
and believe it or not, some people are interested in real-life usecases, so they find
even the "incorrect" description written by the user valuable
There are issues with grub2 and os-prober that also need to be
addressed for certain use cases.
I do not see any grub2 and os-prober bugs in the dependency chain ... would that
"intention" change into action only after someone will file two more
"incorrect" bugs?
K.
--
Karel Volný
QE BaseOs/Daemons Team
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. +420 532294274
(RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074)
xmpp ka...@jabber.cz
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
:: easily be explained by stupidity."
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
