On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Apr 6, 2009, at 5:21 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
I would apply a 'lazy fix', next time we have occasion to visit the underlying packages, at most
** chuckle **
I would prefer a more active fix such as
... snip ... energetic approach outlined
But be lazy schmuck if you want. ;-)
--------------------------------------------
The context on the 'lazy' referent was not surfaced by me but my full remark was this in some discussion off the forum:
But then it seems the text source may reside on some patch we applied to a translation .po [I am in limited compute richness and cannot conveniently run this down presently]
To the extent that upstream has varied from their announced intent (by the trademark guidance piece they put out) of confining the packages needing patches to the initial two [and we ran an effort on this a few cycles back], they earn the confusion themselves. We can chase and locally fix their errors while they move forward, or we can pursue our own agendas
I think our agenda is to use good faith effort, and then fix the issue in the next point release [certainly a leisurely pace toward fixing 'cosmetic errors' essentially matches that policy used toward cosmetic matters upstream]
I do not see mention that a bug was filed, and to the extent that forum answers by 'authoritative answerers' there do not feed the bug tracker, we hide knowledge of possible errors from ourselves by leaving it only in the forum
----------------------------------------------
so, only 'sort of' lazy -- a leisurely one, sort of a copy on write of new updates ;)
-- Russ herrold