On 04/06/2025 14:39, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Ahmad Khalifa (2025-06-04 15:05:25)
On 04/06/2025 13:50, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote:
Le 2025-06-04 13:56, Ahmad Khalifa a écrit :
Because they're misleading and waste contributor time.
I don't think so, in general. Some RFH are not detailed enough, but many
are pretty clear about which kind of help is needed.
I have recent evidence of 2 newcomers complaining about wasting time on
RFH bugs. Do you have recent evidence of anyone benefiting from RFH bugs?
I do not have strong evince for RFH bugreports making newcomers happy.
Forget happy, what about results? The old RFH achieves nothing.
I dare say that I dont find your evidence presented here strong either:
What you describe is newcomers being frustrated over not being able to
figure out out how to navigate the complexities of Debian. That is a
real problem, I agree with that. I disagree, however, that the solution
is to remove features in Debian that newcomers risk "wasting time" on.
No, I navigate fine. You're assuming it was a superfluous MR probably or
"not worthy".
Read the MR adding the no-X11 feature [1]
Read the bug asking for no-X11 package [2]
Read the package's own d/TODO file [3] listing that as needed
And why not spend time reading the RFH itself? [4]
Then come back and tell me why a maintainer is allowed to ask for help
and then ignore it?
1. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/imagemagick/-/merge_requests/5
2. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=470671
3.
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/imagemagick/-/blob/debian/bookworm/debian/TODO?ref_type=heads
4. https://bugs.debian.org/1017366
This discussion is going no where.
--
Regards,
Ahmad
