It seems that Historical Revisionism, of the bad kind, is now in
operation at Debian, in that critical commentary about unapplied patches
is made to disappear down the memory hole, without leaving so much as a
trace on the relevant bug report.
If it were thought that the criticism was unfair, or i
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:09:30 +0200
"Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" wrote:
>> If it were thought that the criticism was unfair, or inaccurate, then
>> it could be allowed to remain in place, so that other people might
>> judge its lack of merit for themselves.
>>
>> In the case of bug #684128, post #108, h
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:51:38 +0200
Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> I disagree: that mail starts with a chat between "Humpty Dumpty" and
>> "Alice", which both have nothing to do with the bug at hand. There
>> was nothing in the subject or the first paragraphs of the text that
>> indicated how that story
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:45:55 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Just take care in future that the style of communications you used
> triggered someone's "wetware spam filter" with a false positive.
I initially wrote up a detailed bug report, and then when somebody
suggested that the problem would get
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:09:04 +0200
Christian PERRIER wrote:
> This mail is a very good argument to confirm that overcomplicated
> methods to make your point will just fail.
>
> If you have a point to make it, make ti. Once. With facts.
I supplied plenty of facts.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:45:26 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> the long and sordid tale of your bid to get attention for this bug
That's right; I wrote it up in detail, provided patches when asked to do
so, provided test scripts to demonstrate the correctness of those
patches, answered every question
a écrit :
> You want that bug fixed? Great: test the patch, document your tests
I did all that.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684128#103
> gather feedback, get involved
quoting from the above:
I would be interested to hear suggestions as to what sort of tests
of bi
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 23:51:03 +0200
"Matteo F. Vescovi" wrote:
>> /usr/include/gegl-0.3/opencl/gegl-cl-color.h
>> /usr/include/gegl-0.3/opencl/gegl-cl.h
>> /usr/include/gegl-0.3/opencl/gegl-cl-init.h
>> /usr/include/gegl-0.3/opencl/gegl-cl-random.h
>> /usr/include/gegl-0.3/opencl/gegl-cl-types.h
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:25:29 -0700
wrote:
>> I'm not going to try a 'merge-on-the-fly' on headers to save a bunch
>> of kilobytes. Sorry.
>
> Saving a bunch of kilobytes is really not the issue, as I suggested
> when I said "isn't that a Policy violation?".
I was right -- it IS a Debian Policy
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827104
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 17:30:19 +0200
Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
Please remove this false dependency.
>>>
>>> It's not a false dependency, it's just that the package has been
>>> removed and the dependency line not updated.
>>
>> If a d
10 matches
Mail list logo
