A developer may be very well used to the process of requesting updates, but at least for me, deleting a patch and rebuilding is a matter of half an hour, making a correct request for an update is beyond of my possibilities in terms of free time.
On the other hand, an updated deb is useful to let subscribers to the bug report test the fix, and to give them a workaround. In this case, I can confirm that the fix works, and can also use xournal in intrepid (but I can't use intrepid for so many other regressions). So why complaining? I sincerely HOPE that people keeps uploading debs with fixes for other people to test, instead of let poorly tested patches pass trough the upload procedure. The easier you make testing, the more feedback you receive. Is it the case that a quick revert of a wrong patch should go trough all the burocracy or could the patch just be reverted by somebody? It can't be so terribly difficult. OTOH, a proper solution that fixes redraw problems AND does not break xournal is needed. That's a separate problem. For now the urgent matter is to repair broken xournal in intrepid, by reverting a patch that caused a known regression. -- [regression, intrepid] redraw problems, patches from fedora https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272316 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
