Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:32798 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 326 invoked by uid 1010); 16 Oct 2007 00:55:13 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 311 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2007 00:55:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2007 00:55:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=wmoran@potentialtech.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=wmoran@potentialtech.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain potentialtech.com designates 66.167.251.6 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: wmoran@potentialtech.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.167.251.6 internet.potentialtech.com Received: from [66.167.251.6] ([66.167.251.6:56033] helo=mail.potentialtech.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BA/C4-59062-0FB04174 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:55:12 -0400 Received: from working (c-71-60-127-199.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [71.60.127.199]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25403EBC3B for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:55:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:55:09 -0400 To: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: <20071015205509.2cdede49.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <4713B5D3.9000207@daylessday.org> References: <20071015140534.e44b8be8.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <4713B5D3.9000207@daylessday.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] My musings on problems I've had with the PHP community From: wmoran@potentialtech.com (Bill Moran) Antony Dovgal wrote: > > On 15.10.2007 22:05, Bill Moran wrote: > > http://www.potentialtech.com/cms/node/48 > > > > Hope that article doesn't come across as too harsh, but I really feel > > like it needed to be said. [snip] > The only thing I get is personal insults for closing someone's report as bogus. And I > also have to prove that it is bogus and close it several times explaining why it is so > and why I'm not an asshole. I wasn't going to respond to this, then I thought about it a bit. Do you have any idea how insane that statement sounds? If you mark bugs as bogus and you don't expect anyone to question that action ... ? By some theology, the definition of insanity is performing the same action over and over and expecting a different result. If every time I closed a bug with no explanation, a bunch of people jump on me about it, yet I continued to do so, I would _deserve_ the assholes I had to deal with. Or, I could just start putting a brief explanation in the bug report and see if the increased communication led to improved relations with the users. But to keep on the same path and complain that it continues to produce the same result ... that's insanity. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com