[Pkg-mailman-hackers] Anybody looking at #242713?

[Siggy Brentrup]

--sClP8c1IaQxyux9v
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:40:15PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi,

> On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 07:38:48PM +0200, Siggy Brentrup <bsb@debian.org>=
 wrote:

> > has anybody started to investigate #242713 (port numbers in URL)?
>  I would like to take it. Well, I still haven't finished installing
> that server I was talking about, but there Mailman will be available
> on an Apache2 running on port 8080. Thus at least I can be an aid
> for testing, if someone other would like to take it. Sorry, it took
> too much time to set up everything auth for an Active Directory.



> > L=E1szl=F3 and me both responding to #242740 was funny and not that much
> > overhead,

>  IMHO it was good that we both responded, grave bugs should be dealt
> with as soon as possible; so I think it was good that we both jump
> into it.  I think you closed it too fast, the user maybe just missed
> the cut&paste. We should wait a day or so for the user to catch up
> with the mistake and prove that the bug is exists. What do you
> think?

I don't want to leave RC bugs unanswered; I expect from advanced users
(only those can file bugs > normal) that they use their brain before
submitting.  Offering to reopen when missing information is supplied
seemed TRT[tm] to me.  Obviously you are a much kinder and more
patient person than I am. :-)

btw: when python chokes an AttributeError on string.ascii_uppercase,
there is something seriously broken on the submitter's system.

> We may (have) set up a policy how bugs should be handled (how to
> show it was taken by someone -- the confirmed tag may help here) or
> how long should we wait before closing unreproducible bugs and so
> on.
After rereading http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control the owner
command seems to be appropriate for indicating who has taken
responsibility and I was wrong when setting owner to aba after
splitting.
=20
> > but IMHO we should better coordinate when real work is involved.
>  Agree, that's what I have tried on this list, as you also did.
> Unfortunately feedback was rare. :( Also, as I see this package is a
> bit going to go back for one person maintaining. Mostly it was us
> working on it, and my time will be even less and less from next
> week.

Sorry to hear that, but real life always has precedence.

> Btw, I will look into #242740, #224319 and #242713 if I can fix
> them. Also I am intrested about #240601. But if I can't do it on
> during this weekend, or someone other would like to take them, feel
> free to do it.

Go ahead, this weekend I'd like to devote to learning GNU R, it's been
a long time that I studied mathematical statistics, nearly everything
seems to be deeply buried :-(.

> OTOH, bugs with moreinfo and unreproducible can be closed now. They
> were open for enough time (~10 days) for anyone to object, but as no
> one did, we should not keep them around any more. Oh, and #225446
> can be closed by wontfix, as it's not apply to Mailman, but the
> MTA's in general and can't be avoided IMHO.

It's still to early, quoting http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer:
| moreinfo
|     This bug can't be addressed until more information is provided by
|     the submitter. The bug will be closed if the submitter doesn't
|     provide more information in a reasonable (few months)
|     timeframe. This is for bugs like "It doesn't work". What doesn't
|     work?

Greetings
 . Siggy


--sClP8c1IaQxyux9v
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAeBoZ94B/SGO8KQcRAlNDAJ9+kL+cwAURtN2lFHe2kNEViNeHDwCghjyi
pBJewjhP3ORDZoO1OUCrWxk=
=zL8c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sClP8c1IaQxyux9v--