[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FC2 doubtful quality?

Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 22 June 2004 12:35, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>     to those folks who habitually respond to critisicm of FC 1/2 with this
> annoying, circle-the-wagons, defensive mentality, a piece of advice: grow
> up.

Well I also noted this, although to be fair Dexter wrote a good and mild 
reply, but I see this defensiveness coming from their not being empowered to 
do anything about the problem.  Only RH folks can do this because of the 
project structure.  Some people who do great work helping on the ml are 
threfore finding themselves becoming slightly shrill and embattled fanboys, 
equating acknowledging the problem they cannot do anything about with heresy 
against the project and the great RH people who lead it.  So they will not 
acknowledge the problem and it is easier to talk about how FC is meant to be 
cutting edge, unstable, not for everyone.

>     when someone takes the time to document a number of legitimate concerns
> and obvious flaws in an *official* release (after three, count 'em,
> *three* test releases), and also legitimately asks whether he should be
> concerned about its quality, he deserves a better and more mature answer
> than "No one is forcing you to use FC2."

This is clearly a good point.  However, to be fair there was a weekly effort 
to triage bugs in Bugzilla I recall, I failed to help out on this.  Certainly 
as I noted the RH people are responsive and very effective if their attention 
is drawn to the need, I guess they are drowning in Bugzilla entries.   Maybe 
if people with outstanding killers in Bugzilla were more vocal during the 
test time the circle can be squared. 

- -Andy

- -- 
Automatic actions for USB cameras, cardreaders, memory sticks, MP3 players
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]