Re: [groff] Maintainer out of bounds

[Werner LEMBERG]

[Bjarni, please don't write one-sentence paragraphs all the time.
 This makes it very hard to read your posts.]

I haven't followed this closely so sorry for reacting late.

>   1) My contributions to "bug-groff" have been marked as "spam" from
> 15th August 2018 (a comment to bug #54475).

Indeed, `spam' is an inappropriate term...

>   In the same bug number Ingo Schwarze asks, what the consequences
> are to flag issues as a "spam".  He does not give any definition of
> a "spam", so his claim can not be checked for validity, and is thus
> invalid based on the current state.

... since your reports are not spam per se.  However, he wanted to
remove your reports from the issue database, which the bug tracker
doesn't allow.  My corrolary: this isn't possible.  Ingo, please mark
such reports as `wontfix' in the future if you think that nothing
should be done.

>   That my text is a spam is a lie, and it is never substantiated
> with any facts.

He explicitly explained why he did that (namely to completely remove a
report)!  Please be careful with your wording.

>   a) my reports litter the bug tracker
> 
> There is no concrete explanation of this, so Ingo's statements are
> an imagination and deceiving.

He gave an explanation in https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?54475:

  As a rule, reporting a compiler warning in the bugtracker is
  detrimental unless there is reason to believe that there is an
  actual bug.

>   b) my reports make it (for him only?) more difficult to search
> (for what?).

Obviously he thinks that your reports make it harder to search `real'
bug issues.  I disagree, since it is easy to apply a filter that only
display `confirmed' issues, say.

>   a) if a report about warnings is invalid, are then the warnings
>      themselves invalid?  if yes, why are they then issued?  if no,
>      why is it then to be prohibited to report them?

This is a philosophical question, and I disagree with Ingo's point of
view.  IMHO, *all* warnings should be fixed if possible, both on the
C++ and groff macro level.  Reason: Harmless warnings distract from
other, more serious issues, which could be easily missed then.
However, I'm no longer maintaining groff, so it is appropriate of the
guys who take care of groff right now to classify bugs according to
their principles.

>   stop marking my deficit reports as being spam, stop lying!

Bjarni, such accusations are ridiculous.  Please reread what Ingo has
written.  I can only repeat: Marking such reports as `spam' was just a
failed technical try to remove reports from the database – which Ingo
explicitly explained!

>   Remove the "invalid" ticket" from the bug numbers 54473 and 54474.

This doesn't help.  A side effect of marking issues as spam is that
the original message disappears, with no possibility to restore as far
as I can see...  If you like you can re-submit the original posts so
that the issues are complete again; they can then be classified as
`wontfix'.

>   Remove Ingo Schwarze from being allowed to misuse his status as a
> maintainer.  [...]

I won't do that.  All your reasonings are based on false assumptions,
see above.  Many of your reports have been taken care of, which means
that your reports *are* valued.  Some of them, however, are not.


    Werner