gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x56b1a100.hantslug.org.uk.22299': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Sat Aug 1 18:09:32 2009 BST
gpg: using DSA key 20ACB3BE515C238D
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 05:54:52PM +0100, pavithran wrote:
> 2009/7/31 Keith Edmunds <kae@???>:
>
> > So you're running alpha software and you've found a bug: excellent. Now
> > you need to establish whether Firefox is failing to correctly render valid
> > HTML/CSS/etc, or whether the site code is invalid. Even in the second case
> > there is still an argument for reporting the problem to Firefox. Expecting
> > the site concerned to update the software used to create the site /in
> > order to fix the problem with a new browser/ is an attitude we expect to
> > see from Redmond.
>
> well I trust firefox alpha version more than I trust gallery 1 version :D
Then I'd suggest that that's a foolish (and unrealistic) position
to take.
> Many of us also agree that moving from gallery1 to gallery2 definitely
> is a buggy process. Hence that definitely implies the support
> available for gallery1 and how much gallery2/3 devs really care.
>
> Yes I run firefox 3.6 alpha but it gets updated every 6 hours or so
> hence I belive in the firefox developer community to write a browser
> which properly renders HTML,CSS and JS .
> >Expecting
> > the site concerned to update the software used to create the site /in
> > order to fix the problem with a new browser/ is an attitude we expect to
> > see from Redmond.
> Yeah but I believe gallery1 or the template used is buggy .
It's not about belief, it's about evidence and proof. Believe that
the template is buggy all you want, but if you want action taken, you
need to demonstrate sufficiently well that the problem really does lie
in Gallery 1, and not in a piece of *alpha quality* software that is
likely to be only lightly tested and to have a large number of bugs in
it.
If you can demonstrate how and where the CSS or HTML of Gallery
manages to break the spec in a way that causes the rendering errors
you are seeing, then I'll start believing you that there's something
wrong. Until then, it is much more in the balance of probabilities
that the low-quality(*) development snapshots you're using are at
fault.
Hugo.
(*) They're low quality by dint of being 6-hourly development
snapshots. I'm not claiming that the Mozilla developers are any
better or any worse than any other set of developers in this. *Any*
software released automatically from development snapshots at 6-hourly
intervals during a development cycle is going to be low quality.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- It's not so much an afterlife, more a sort of après vie. ---
