Bug#836352: Scrollbar can't go to the bottom with a theme other than Adwaita

[Raphaël Halimi]

Le 02/09/2016 à 13:57, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit :
> You are clearly are regular end user if you don't understand how bug reporting
> and fixing works in the FOSS community. If you need updated versions of
> certain packages, you are supposed to use Debian Backports, not unstable.
> 
> Again, if you want to use unstable because you need updated versions of
> certain packages then Debian unstable is definitely the wrong distribution!

git-buildpackage isn't backported in Jessie, nor are gcc 5 and 6. Now
stop being so condescending whereas you are obviously wrong about many
things.

>> "People like me" ? What exactly do you mean by that ?
> 
> People who will always resort to reporting a bug first instead of doing
> some research to figure out whether this is maybe a known issue.
> 
> Filing a bug report should always be your *last* resort, not the first
> one.

Your choice of words ("first" and "last resort") is interesting, because
I'm plagued by this bug from the day 1.14 entered unstable, and I
patiently waited until now to report it - when I was on the verge of
switching to another desktop - precisely because I naively thought that
you cared about users of unstable needing a working file manager.

By the way, I didn't yet report the F3/Ctrl+L bug for the exact same
reason (plus that it's not as serious as having a scrollbar which
refuses to go down all the way to the bottom).

So please stop considering everyone but yourself as naive and lazy (or
should I say dumb ?) clueless end-users who barely know to just whine on
the BTS as soon as something is broken.

>> Also, please remind me when I showed to "constantly ignore" that Debian
>> developers get a lot of e-mail traffic due to bug reports. Don't you
>> think I already know that after using Debian for seventeen years ?
> 
> Apparently you do. Otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion, would we?

No. We are having this discussion because your views about how the bugs
should be processed by Debian is deeply flawed.

>> Please show me a bug that I reported that was already (or that
>> I didn't merge by myself very quickly after realizing it). I honestly
>> take kindly to learn from my mistakes.
> 
> This one? It has already been reported as #836246.

No. #836246 is about general breakage in MATE due to GTK3, the bug I
reported here is about a precise problem, which is not mentioned in
#836246. Moreover, it's funny that you mention this bug, because even
then, you already ranted about OP when he filed it, and Michael Biebl
already reminded you that people people reporting bugs is the whole
point of unstable.

>> That's not what the Debian documentation says (I mean the official
>> Debian documentation, not the wiki):
>>
>>> Don't file bugs upstream
> 
> Yes, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement because the
> people who usually fix the bugs are upstream, not in Debian.

Oh, so because *you* disagree with a Debian official document, all
Debian users and developers should follow your way of thinking instead
of what's written in that *official* document ? Are you even listening
to yourself ?

>> It means that I should report the bug to Debian first, and that *you*
>> decide afterwards if it should be forwarded upstream.
> 
> Why should I do that for you when you can do that yourself perfectly
> fine? Do you expect me to do your homework?

Because, mind you, that's what Debian, as a project, is expecting from
me, and from you.

>> Ironically, this is *especially true* in this particular case, since
>> upstream still uses GTK2 by default, and building the whole MATE desktop
>> against GTK3 was a decision made solely by the Debian maintainers (and,
>> IMHO, not a very clever one, since the Gnome devs, who took over GTK a
>> long time ago, are notorious for being oblivious to anything non-Gnome -
>> especially other desktop environments, which they see as competitors to
>> their "brand" (I quote) - and happily (or is it purposefully ? I may be
>> a bit paranoid here, but who knows) break GTK every six months).
> 
> GTK2 is going to be abandoned sooner or later. Also, the decision was
> made by people who also happen to be MATE upstream. But again, you
> are complaining about things breaking in unstable where breaking
> things is *expected*.

Expecting things to break from time to time and being treated as a
testing ground for alpha-grade software are two different things. Even
if it's not explicitly written in the Policy, Debian is well-known for
sticking to upstream configuration as closely as possible. If upstream
still defaults to GTK2 and you decide to build the whole MATE desktop
against GTK3, Debian MATE diverges from upstream MATE, and you should
expect people to report bugs *to Debian* about it.

>> I gladly admit that I forgot to add the "upstream" tag, but you can't
>> seriously blame me for reporting bugs in the Debian BTS only because
>> they come from upstream, whereas the official Debian documentation
>> explicitly says otherwise.
> 
> Again, I fully disagree with the official Debian documentation here
> and once I find the fime, I will request the documentation to be changed
> because routing all bug reports through Debian will just add an
> extra layer of indirection which is never good.
> 
> Really, there is no point in reporting the bug to Debian if it turns
> out to be an upstream issue. I have reported tons of bugs upstream,
> heck, I usually even test the latest git revision from upstream to
> make sure I'm not reporting something that has already been fixed.
> 
> Why annoy people with things they already know or have taken care
> of? All you achieve is annoying them or keep them from doing useful
> things as opposed to reading redundant or invalid bug reports.

Because, until the documentation says otherwise, you (and me) are
expected to follow what's written in it. I couldn't care less if you
agree with it or not.

In the meantime, stop abusing fellow users and developers just because:

1/ You decided to diverge from upstream defaults and received a couple
of (justified) bug reports about it

2/ You brazenly decided that you know better than the official Debian
documentation which governs our behavior regarding this project for
years (by the way, good luck to make it change)

> Again, if you're using Debian unstable because you need updated versions
> of selected packages then you definitely made the wrong choice. Use stable
> and install these packages from backports. This way you are guaranteed
> not to run into sudden breakages on your production machines and also
> avoid contact with grumpy Debian Developers like me. It will be more
> relaxed for you and me.

I don't use unstable on this particular box only to have the latest
versions of the Debian developer tools, but also to help the project to
shape the next release by reporting bugs, which, as Michael Biebl
already reminded you in #836246, is the whole point of unstable.

And you're not only grumpy, you're being condescending, which is
something entirely different.

Regards,

-- 
Raphaël Halimi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 967 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mate-team/attachments/20160902/601d67a8/attachment.sig>