I spent part of the last week fixing bugs in DBD::SQLite and pushing out a new release. I do this out of the goodness of my heart to help people build apps. But having a popular module has its downsides. There are lots of RT bugs to go through. And some of those bugs can be less than helpful.
One such bug was RT bug #20286 which told me that some other CPAN module didn't behave quite right when using DBD::SQLite. That's not much help to me in debugging - I'm not about to download some other huge module off CPAN and figure out all that code and what it does to try and locate my bug.
So I rejected the bug.
The author disagreed with the rejection and re-opened it.
So I rejected it again.
End result: David Muir Sharnoff decides the right thing to do now to get me to fix this "bug" is to give a low rating on cpanratings. What a stupid and lame tactic.
So I'm playing the name and shame game - my equivalent of his lame tactic.
Re:net.kook?
uri on 2006-09-08T20:33:20
and i took over his file::slurp module which had a version number based on the date which is why it is now numbered 9999.12 with the.12 being the real version. also his original list slurp test was broken (which i fixed). finally he bitched at me for 'changing' the behavior of read_file which his original module never specified in the docs, his old code didn't do what he said it did and it had no test for it. my change added flexibity to the api, is documented and tested. and the change was easy to work around for his own user code.
i wouldn't put much weight into his comments.
uri
Stalled is indeed probably better
Alias on 2006-09-09T11:04:02
Actually, I think you'd probably be right.
You probably shouldn't reject a bug just because you can't replicate it (where I use "can't" in the sense of "What Matt said").
If you acknowledge that the bug exists, it's simply stalled because you can't do anything to fix it.
