|
|
|
|
|
by jsmthrowaway
4377 days ago
|
|
> The reporter didn't provide enough detail to begin with, and was rude as well. drepper's skill is in goading that response out of people, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes consciously. Take note of where the rudeness began before spending 143 words apologizing for and defending him. I struggle to think what additional information could be included in this bug report, as you request, since: f(x) -> y /* erroneous */
f(x) -> z /* correct */
...is about the most perfectly-written bug you can ask for and was enough context for drepper to understand. |
|
The bug report does not follow the projects standard for reporting bugs.
The main problem is that it does not link to the specification, and explain why it is not up to spec. This is required by the glibc bug reporting standards.
Later the reporter checks the scanf function against another implementation, as is asked for by the glibc documentation. Later the reporter also explains why it is wrong against the specification. If the reporter had read the guidelines initially and done these things, that would have been an acceptable bug report. To not do so is wasting the maintainers time. It is rude if the reporter knew about the bug reporting guidelines, and decided to waste the maintainers time anyway.
In this particular case, I think the reporter and the maintainer could have done a better job.