[arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!

[Aaron Griffin]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Heiko Baums <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:58:12 -0600
> schrieb Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
>
>> This sounds like throwing technology at a problem that basically boils
>> down to a communication issue.
>>
>> Without specific examples, this isn't going to go anywhere, really.
>>
>> Would someone mind linking to the bugs in question?
>
> I didn't give the links to these bug reports and the names of the
> concerned developers because I didn't want to offend anyone personally
> with this thread.
>
> I just wanted to say, that such things happened at least twice. That
> such an early closing bug can easily seem arrogant or ignorant. I know
> in the meantime that the developer didn't mean it. So I think discussing
> how to avoid such things in general would be better.
>
> And yes, in the last case, it was indeed a communication issue and some
> misunderstandings on the developers and on my side. But I would say
> that the communication concerns in these special cases are clarified.
>
> But those communication issues could be avoided with some of the
> proposals already made here in this thread.

Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray.

More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the
developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what
a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it
directly with the developer in question