[arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!

[Isaac Dupree]

On 03/14/10 13:05, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Heiko Baums<lists at baums-on-web.de>  wrote:
>> Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600
>> schrieb Aaron Griffin<aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to
>>> the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is
>>> exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer.
>>
>> ...
> See the bug referenced and the final comment in the bug. It links to
> two upstream bug reports

OK, so the thing is... *I* knew it was considered duplicate, because I'd 
gotten a private response from the developer saying so (via the 
annoyingly tiny reopen-request-box communication mechanism).  But the 
publicly displayed bug-resolution said "fixed in so-and-so package 
versions" -- versions in which it wasn't fixed (the dev and I seem to 
agree).  Any of the following would satisfy me:

- I contact dev privately, dev switches resolution to "closed - 
duplicate of upstream report"

- I or the dev adds a comment to the Arch bug-report that says the bug 
is closed because it's an upstream bug (see link).  (The current final 
comment doesn't do this because it seems to say just, hi, these bugs 
might be related: quote of that comment:
> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26266
>
> Found more bugs that were posted here for example:
> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14693
>
> Sounds like some serious problems over there.

- there are probably other resolutions that would be satisfying too. 
For example, I'd be fine with the bug being re-opened (since it's not 
fixed, even if it is an upstream xorg and/or kernel bug, and since it 
does make graphical Arch-Linux nigh unusable for some people, aside from 
hacky workarounds, and since it does/did interact with packaging 
decisions like whether to enable KMS by default).

-Isaac