Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:10, Jeremy Kolb wrote:
> I've filed a number of bugs that have not been addressed, 3 are over 2
> weeks old now.
>
> http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5527 requires a version
> change.
>
> http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5528 hasn't been addressed
>
> http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5529 hasn't been addressed
>
> http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5599 this was confirmed in
> irc. needs a downgrade. but it blows up alsa.
>
> Anyways, it's kind of frustrating to see 2 week old bugs some of which
> just need version updates, the other's I'm not sure about but it doesn't
> look like they've even been looked at.  Sorry about the rant, but it's
> just annoying to have to keep removing them from queue and they should
> all just work.
>

1) are you aware that Robin (CuznDragon) has around 240 spells in his gnome 
sections ? I know (you know this too if you stop to think about it) that he 
is a hard worker, and I understand he might be too busy with real life to 
respond with "How high, sir ?" when you say jump. I also understand if he 
decides to be slack for a month after giving outstanding service to this 
distribution for more than 18 months. It is his right as a volunteer.
2) & 3) Any problem with 2.6.1 kernel headers are not a high priority and 
most 
likely is the responsibility of the software author, not us as spell 
maintainers. There have been several discussions about this on our mail 
lilsts in the last few months, I am surprised you bring it up again. If you 
feel WE should be actively converting every man's and his dog's code to be 
2.6 kernel compatible or,  that WE should be sanitising the 2.6 headers 
quicker than we are, then please offer to help with either of these 
undertakings.
4) I already made a comment on that bug that I personally don't use alsa and 
can't confirm that the last update of module-init-tools has caused any 
problems. You were not specific in describing the problem, no-one else has 
confirmed a similar problem, so what are we meant to do ? One unconfirmed bug 
does not mean a package will get automatically downgraded. If this is in fact 
a well known bug and all the sufferers of this bug have decided to remain 
quiet instead of confirming your bug report then, rally them to your cause, 
get some votes on the bug so we know it is truly a universal problem.

Please don't think I am angry or trying to insult anyone when I say this, I 
am 
simply stating facts. But this "rant", as you put it, is not acceptable. If 
work isn't been done fast enough for you then please volunteer to take on 
some of the workload yourself. 
If you think these bugs are easy to fix (as you imply here) then not 
volunteering to help fix them or other bugs so the experienced people can 
spend time working on these ones, is beyond my comprehension.

Hamish the horrible
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAGKJX8fSufZR6424RAvq+AJ4yF/rF6rm8akbJJJqX6LZ9I9oTRwCdHl9n
BQVDbs1f3R3NYdcRRdFbbKs=
=VhUo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----