Am Montag, den 08.10.2007, 18:25 -0600 schrieb Gordon Haverland: > Package: docbook-xsl > Version: 1.73.2.dfsg.1-2 > Severity: normal > > I am not going to go through all the hoops of joining some mailing list, > to submit a wishlist item, and then provide a referral back to the > Debian BTS, just to submit an idea that might improve something.
My recommendation is not a MUST - if you don't like this practice or if you have no sf.net account to report your problem to upstream - well, then simply bother me. I cannot remember, that I ever attacked a bug reporter. However, I have to say the following: It is really that hard to first speak with upstream about a wish for a software, that MUST stay very close to upstream? You expect me to read *your* idea, then you expect me to think about *your* idea and then you expect me to express and discuss *your* idea/wish with upstream, although it wasn't my idea nor wish? Can you tell me, why this practice should have any advantage for you or me? It just increases the work I have to do. Discuss your idea with upstream and give me a pointer. If I like your idea I will contribute to the discussion. If not, it's completely your turn. In every case, it needs your activity. You will not win anything by reporting every wishlist entry to me, because I don't have access to upstream SVN nor do I make the design decisions. And about bug-reporting. It's not a MUST to report a bug to upstream first. Maybe my comment is a bit misleading here. But if you report a bug to the Debian BTS first, I also have to file a bug-report to the upstream BTS (I work closely with upstream doing bug-fixing and feature adding, count my own entries in their tracker). So you again reduce my work doing, what must be done: reporting the bug to upstream. In every case, I will write and suggest patches if you report a bug. But I have more time for these things, if I do not have to do all the things, users could already have done. In the case of docbook-xsl, this was a very good practice in the past and you did not attach any kind of proof, that it does not work not that it "[..] hasn't a hope in hell of working [..]". > I have > no idea what drugs you were on when you thought this might work > (caffiene, EtOH, ...), but this hasn't a hope in hell of working. My drugs are reasoning and common sense. But if you are going to keep this offending discussion style, then do not expect any further answers from my side. I always appreciate ideas to improve things. But your insulting report doesn't improve anything. Suggest a better practice and explain the advantages of your proposal if you are really interested in improving things. I'll give you a week to send me a proposal or I will close this report. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
