Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:23:20 -0400 (EDT)
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > > I'm not saying Bruce is doing a bad job, far from it. I'm saying
> > > the job is impossible.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to correct the apparent impression that "patches
> > > don't get ignored here". Patches get ignored. The difference
> > > between us and Apache is we pretend it doesn't happen and don't
> > > suggest to submitters what action to take when it does. Which
> > > puts Apache ahead of us IMO.
> >
> > The apache group seems to say the patches are indeed ignored, rather
> > then just delayed --- for us, every patch does get a reply, however
> > delayed.
> >
>
> Bruce, I think that this comes back to the perception versus reality
> discussion you and I have had on more than one occasion :). You are
> correct that we always, eventually reply but, until we do (especially
> when it takes a long time) it appears as if people are being ignored.
I will continue to claim that no, we don't always do that. The vast
majority of the time we do, but there is no way that we can claim to
respond to them all. No, I cannot point you to an example where this
has happened. I *know* it has happened, because I do recall it, but I
don't recall the specific case. But more important, with the say things
are set up now, there is no way we can prove that we *do* respond to
them all.
I'm not saying we don't respond to *enough* of them. We're close enough
to all that I think that part is ok (though that still comes back to
the inability for the "outside party" to know if something is missed or
just delayed), but we can't honestly claim 100%.
//Magnus
