https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404465
--- Comment #3 from arcli...@gmail.com <arcli...@gmail.com> --- Despite making a legitimate bug report of an application that fails to comply with established best practices in respect of operations within a foreign system without any prior knowledge of that system or its available resources. In which case: 1. am I receiving criticism for being clear in the original bug report? 2. a written probe into the initial apparent conceptual deficit demonstrated by the code author's initial response resulted in sufficient feedback from the code author to characterise their behaviour as wilful disregard for: a) private properties, business schedules and b) equality towards any function other than themself 3. the early intervention by a 3rd party with ambiguous definitions of reference(s) to the chronology of who "was altering the report state inappropriately" did not help a difficult task in dealing with the code author's (code) behaviour or the task of increasing the array of conceptual references to assist 'as would normally be' a temporary array of references, now with the persistent lack of understanding complicated by further interventions by new 3rd parties who have not bothered to follow the Bugzilla template steps to recreate the reported bug beforehand demands persistent references. As for premature enunciations, these are of no consequence, unless they are motivated by such underhand intolerances as misogyny, they are of no consequence. 4. the off topic responses by the code author and continued unwillingness by them to engage with the terms of the original report it is still unresolved. 5. the purpose of Bugzilla is to encourage the respective author's open discussion, which has not yet occurred. 6. the expected result is an alternative to the naive operation of the buggy code in respect of operating within a private environment, critically not of their own property and without knowledge of the pre-existing machine state while respecting this principle fact by attempting to limit any potential for negative impact by a minimalist self check for a prior instance and validating additional (n+1) instances by asking the system owner to confirm operation (Y/N?). 7. the code author is stating they need proof, demanding further proof beyond, the commitment already, to run their code, to observe their code, to document their code, their code behaviour is immediately at their own command to comply with, as described, a minimalist system check for an instance of the same code identity already in existence on a foreign system, to open a dialogue if and only if code using the same name is already running on that system; in which case the system owner is asked: "Please verify you wish to start a fresh instance of K3b (Y/N)?" Despite being asked to make a video on behalf of the code author I believe it would be far easier for the code author to create a video of the above bugzilla report than for myself since they should already be very familiar with the behaviour of their code. If not, I am forced to ask the question, why not? This is of concern if code is released to the public environment without a full set of use cases and tests beforehand and since the code author has specified a screen recording app. I am given to understand they already have this item? Given the normal flow of discourse where there is already a problem that impacts a private individual during their work schedule because of a failure to understand best practices. I have performed enough to assist any other users to confirm these findings and for the code author to observe the impact of failing to amend their code appropriately as suggested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
