Re: gnome-vfs-extras2 smb support unusable
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 19:02, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Huh? Alex filed this bug when the new libsmbclient-based code had just
> been merged. And it took 9 days for me to push it upstream from the
> point when you updated it.
Somehow I misread the bug and misremembered history. Sorry.
> > That's what I mean when I say unresponsive.
>
> The code at the time wasn't suitable for bug fixing of any kind, it was
> was a gigantic cut'n'paste and not maintainable. That's why I spent time
> rewriting it using the libsmbclient API.
Which explains the long absences from the bug list. That doesn't mean
the bug lists weren't unmaintained for a long time, just that there was
a reason. You can be unresponsive for a reason; that's still being
unresponsive. It's not necessarily a bad thing, just a fact.
And as I said, it's changing now, which is a good thing.
> Dude, I should be the one sighing. Try to earn the "developer" of Debian
> developer.
I am a developer with very little time at the moment, which I why I
e-mailed debian-gtk-gnome with the plea for help.
> For the other packages I have in Debian and for which I'm
> upstream (or one of the upstream like in this case), the developers are
> trying to do some investigation before jumping on their high horses and
> are polite to me.
Never in this exchange have I been less than polite to you.
> You're accusing me of not wanting to look into the bugs, [...]
For a long while that's exactly what it looked like. Can you fault me
for drawing a conclusion about an unmaintained buglist? If bugs had been
updated with status, this would never have happened.
However, I should not have extended that conclusion forward in time,
which is my fault and I'm sorry for it.
--
Joe Drew <hoserhead@woot.net> <drew@debian.org>
Just admit to yourself that you're a thief: http://me.woot.net/stealing.html
Reply to: