Bug#735261: mutiple upstream bugs
On Sunday 18 January 2015 23:51:01 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Shai Berger <shai@platonix.com> wrote:
> > Those "easily recreatable" bits represent a significant part of my mail
> > workflow. Almost any data can be recreated by repeating the work that
> > created it. Your claims essentially come down to "workflows based on
> > 'read status' are invalid or unimportant". Well, they're damned
> > important to me.
>
> Then you're either choosing the wrong mail client or not doing enough
> to help upstream scratch that itch.
>
Certainly; but that's hardly what we're discussing here.
> > I suspect that this discussion is going nowhere, but I still would like
> > you to answer one more question: Can you describe the difference between
> > "serious" and "non-serious" data loss?
>
> The difference is "actual" vs. "perceived" data loss.
>
I am asking about "serious" vs. "non-serious" because those are the terms used
by reportbug ("non-serious data loss" is a reason to mark a bug "grave").
Calling data-loss which you find unimportant "perceived, not actual" isn't
helpful at all. You're playing with terms rather than making points.
Shai.
Reply to: