See my reply. The part of the patch which you refused because it was
“well documented” breaks RT. Not fixing that isn’t something you can
simply “document” – RT falls over. Searches break. Pulling up
tickets break. Pulling reports on users work on tickets break. You
can’t simply “document this behavior”, it’s a must-fix issue.On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Ruslan Zakirov wrote:
Demanding work be done by developers who kindly (ie for free) maintain
open source software, in my opinion, borders on being plain rude.
You are free to patch your own version of RT, or find alternative
software which falls more in line with your expectations for ongoing
development. The excuse of being tired and emotional only carries weight
for so long.
Let me give you simple advice. Don’t attack developers, please.
Instead of proving that you’re right, you started arguing and using
must word. Nobody in this community owes you anything. You didn’t make
you case. Patches are not applied unless bug is obviouse, that’s it.
In the ticket I proved that things work as expected and may be I’m
missing something, but you didn’t describe problem. I even don’t know
how you invoke shredder and I can not try every way.
We can continue arguing on the list or offline, but you brought enough
attention and at this point I do think it’s better to stop it and
start discussing real problem in the ticket.On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Jo Rhettjrhett@netconsonance.com wrote:
See my reply. The part of the patch which you refused because it was “well
documented” breaks RT. Not fixing that isn’t something you can simply
“document” – RT falls over. Searches break. Pulling up tickets break.
Pulling reports on users work on tickets break. You can’t simply
“document this behavior”, it’s a must-fix issue.
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Ruslan Zakirov wrote:
# HACK: we may use Count method which counts all records
# that match condtion, but we really want to know only that
# at least one record exist, so we fetch first row only
–
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
Gordon, I didn’t demand anything. I (for free, as you said) supplied
a patch which makes the software work. Without the patch, the
software does not function. The person I was replying to was making
an argument that this wasn’t necessary, and my text quoted below was
simply making the point that it was necessary. Without the patch, db
inconsistency can make loading tickets impossible. And without the
patch, it errors out rather than completing the job. There’s nothing
“tired” or “emotional” about this, it’s plain fact.On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:32 PM, gordon@cryologic.com wrote:
Demanding work be done by developers who kindly (ie for free) maintain
open source software, in my opinion, borders on being plain rude.
You are free to patch your own version of RT, or find alternative
software which falls more in line with your expectations for ongoing
development. The excuse of being tired and emotional only carries
weight
for so long.
Gordon
Jo Rhett wrote:
See my reply. The part of the patch which you refused because it
was
“well documented” breaks RT. Not fixing that isn’t something you can
simply “document” – RT falls over. Searches break. Pulling up
tickets break. Pulling reports on users work on tickets break. You
can’t simply “document this behavior”, it’s a must-fix issue.