[Xquartz-dev] My RADAR report 6165507

[Jeremy Huddleston]

On Dec 15, 2008, at 23:40, Peter Collinson wrote:

>
> On 15 Dec 2008, at 21:01, Jamie Kennea wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>>
>>> It was a previously reported bug, but *I* (not some bigger-than- 
>>> life "they")
>>
>> You'll forgive my feelings of "Big Brother" towards Radar, the  
>> system is rather faceless sometimes to those of us outside of  
>> Apple. I hadn't realised that it was your decision, obviously.
>>>
> I find that one of the problems with Radar is that when you report a  
> 'duplicate bug' - then you are dismissed and left in limbo. You can  
> email asking for progress and you do get a reply. But what should  
> happen is that you are 'included', you should be:
> a)	given access to any previous dialogue
> b)	put on the mailing list for the bug.
>
> Apple is missing a trick here - if I've reported a bug then I've  
> generally expended energy in researching it and generating evidence  
> and I am quite likely to want to help fix it - but I am excluded.
>
> The other problem is that fixes can sometimes take a long time -  
> when I started with Apple I discovered that Mail.app was reporting  
> times in the summer as BDT - and not BST. This smacked of old US  
> Centric date coding in the app itself rather than using the code in  
> the actual underlying operating system that had been working OK for  
> over 20 years.  The one good thing Nixon did was mess with US  
> daylight saving time and as a result UNIX got a world quality date  
> system that worked properly everywhere. I reported the Mail.app bug  
> in 2005 - it was a duplicate - it wasn't fixed until Leopard.  
> However, it IS fixed - sometimes good things come to those who wait.
>
> I note that most of the bugs I reported when I started were  
> duplicates - and after getting essentially zero response - I stopped  
> reporting bugs until X11 started to be worked on.
>
> Well - putting my money where my mouth is - I've filed this in Radar  
> too.. it will probably be a duplicate:-)

Well... to make you feel better, I think I'll mark mine a duplicate of  
yours... that way you're still in the loop too ;p