[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [h-e-w] Emacs-w32 Bug-Reports for LENNART (patched)

From: David Vanderschel
Subject: Re: [h-e-w] Emacs-w32 Bug-Reports for LENNART (patched)
Date: 03 Apr 2009 22:21:01 -0600

On Friday, April 03, "Lennart Borgman" <address@hidden> wrote:
>David, you are in charge of h-e-w, did we discuss
>this before? I have forgotten. 

Yes, but in general terms.  I think you added the
comment about trying the unpatched version, if
possible, after our previous exchange on the subject.

(BTW - Myself and Rob Davenport are registered as
administrators for the list.  We do moderate,
primarily to get rid of spam.  Sometimes, as in this
case, I do try to steer an unsubscribed poster to a
more appropriate forum.  However, I do not regard
either Rob or myself as being "in charge".  In the
absence of guidance from, I try to distill
some sort of consensus about policies for what is
appropriate on the list.)

>Since h-e-w is a low traffic list and those who use
>the patched version might be interested in this list
>anyway I have addressed the bug reports to this
>list. There are also very few bug reports that are
>specific to the patched version.

The above two sentences seem somewhat contradictory to
me.  If reports for the patched version are indeed
rare, then having the h-e-w list be the default
destination for bug reports from the patched version
would seem counterproductive.

In the case at hand, I had no idea whether MONKEY was
running the patched version or not.  The bug he
reported, though vague, sounded to me more like it was
probably systemic and not Windows-specific; so I
figured the regular bug list would be better.
However, I would not have thought that the pretest bug
list would be appropriate.  Is it really?

I certainly did not expect that MONKEY would take
offense at my suggestions, which were hardly
"pejorative".  I don't think MONKEY really knows what
that word means either, but it is clear that he
regards himself as having been affronted by both my
response to him and by Chong's legitimate request as
well.  I think he was being way too sensitive; and, if
he continues in such a vein, I will ban him from the
list.  We don't need such unjustified dissent here.

  David V.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]