Occasionally I'm a little confused wrt to responses I get in bugreports. Some support people appear to be primarily concerned with fixing my problem or helping me find a work-around, whereas I'm generally reporting problems as feedback on the beta-release(s). I was just today pointing out a regression of functionality in the rescue-system, which was more or less ignored. (https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=148290) In this particular case I'm not too bothered that the report is closed as WONTFIX, but I'm surprised that SUSE doesn't seem to be taking note of the regression. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen
Occasionally I'm a little confused wrt to responses I get in bugreports. Some support people appear to be primarily concerned with fixing my problem or helping me find a work-around, whereas I'm generally reporting problems as feedback on the beta-release(s). I was just today pointing out a regression of functionality in the rescue-system, which was more or less ignored. (https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=148290)
In this particular case I'm not too bothered that the report is closed as WONTFIX, but I'm surprised that SUSE doesn't seem to be taking note of the regression.
Each individual looking at a bugreport might misjudge it - or see it differently than you. With the number of bugreports this can happen quite often, so please don't feel offended. If you disagree, you can reopen it yourself or ask me about it as an escalation (hope this does not happen too often ;-). I reopened this particular bug now and assigned it on, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Each individual looking at a bugreport might misjudge it - or see it differently than you. With the number of bugreports this can happen quite often, so please don't feel offended.
Oh no, definitely not - just confused :-)
If you disagree, you can reopen it yourself or ask me about it as an escalation (hope this does not happen too often ;-). I reopened this particular bug now and assigned it on,
Thanks Andreas - I'll keep this in mind. /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 02:24, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Each individual looking at a bugreport might misjudge it - or see it differently than you. With the number of bugreports this can happen quite often, so please don't feel offended. If you disagree, you can reopen it yourself or ask me about it as an escalation (hope this does not happen too often ;-). I reopened this particular bug now and assigned it on,
I have a similar situation with 146060: I've been unable to install beta2 or beta3 on several machines with these same symptoms, but I can't tell from the bug report if it's invalid, wontfix, etc. because there are no comments added to it. I raised it to P2/blocker and added a vote after I found that I couldn't use beta3 either. This would be a showstopper for us in the shop I work at, where we would have to cancel our plans to deploy 10.1 on several servers and find a different distro instead :( -- ====================================================== Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682) ====================================================== "Greater coherence cannot be achieved. Not even the Netherlanders have managed this." -Anton Webern ======================================================
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Glenn Holmer wrote:
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 02:24, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Each individual looking at a bugreport might misjudge it - or see it differently than you. With the number of bugreports this can happen quite often, so please don't feel offended. If you disagree, you can reopen it yourself or ask me about it as an escalation (hope this does not happen too often ;-). I reopened this particular bug now and assigned it on,
I have a similar situation with 146060: I've been unable to install beta2 or beta3 on several machines with these same symptoms, but I can't tell from the bug report if it's invalid, wontfix, etc. because there are no comments added to it. I raised it to P2/blocker and added a vote after I found that I couldn't use beta3 either.
This would be a showstopper for us in the shop I work at, where we would have to cancel our plans to deploy 10.1 on several servers and find a different distro instead :(
Known blocker (should be fixed for beta4) with XFS: Check out #145204... Regards Christoph
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 04:32, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Glenn Holmer wrote:
I have a similar situation with 146060: I've been unable to install beta2 or beta3 on several machines with these same symptoms, but I can't tell from the bug report if it's invalid, wontfix, etc.
Known blocker (should be fixed for beta4) with XFS: Check out #145204...
Thanks! (breathing big sigh of relief) -- ====================================================== Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682) ====================================================== "Greater coherence cannot be achieved. Not even the Netherlanders have managed this." -Anton Webern ======================================================
participants (4)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Christoph Thiel -
Glenn Holmer -
Per Jessen