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