Kevin Johnson wrote: > On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote: >> I don't have time to go tracking through CVS to figure out a patch >> for the problem, that was not even mentioned in the initial bug report. > > I agree that the bug report was vague and if it had been sent to me, I > would have also responded for more information as you did. Since I held > more information I thought I would help you out. Obviously that was a > mistake and will refrain from trying to build a communication path > between the Debian package maintainer and the project lead. Maybe, if > it is so hard to maintain, you guys should just remove BASE from the > repository. I know it would make my life easier. > > I will go back to ignoring the existence of a Debian package and you can > go back to ignoring the fact that there is an entire team of developers > that would be willing to help you out. >
Providing a patch would be helpful. Just stating we should track CVS
not so much. I've been going through the CVS repository on SourceForge
as that's the one referenced and can't find any changes in the past 6
weeks and none of those changes I can see affect the problem reported.
>> It would also appear that the CVS repository is useless as far as
>> tagging as it appears there was no 1.4.4 release tag made so I couldn't
>> even generate a diff from CVS between the released tarball version and
>> the current CVS HEAD that supposedly fixes the problem.
>
> I didn't realize I had forgotten to tag the release. While that does
> make things more difficult I don't think it renders the repository useless.
>
There appears to have been no tags since 1.4.0 nearly 2 years ago.
Trying to find a change since a given version without a proper tag is
pretty useless when told by the upstream project lead to check CVS.
> Like I said, I was just trying to help you out but obviously that
> irritated you some how.
>
> Have a good day,
> Kevin
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
