This is diversion, my e-mail was not intended to diagnose social
action, the power of conventions or norms.

2010/5/11 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> On 5/10/2010 10:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>
>> Where is the question? It's just a bug report.
>
> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id382249
>
> "Don't rush to claim that you have found a bug
>
> When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you have
> found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless you
> can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression test
> against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are
> probably not sure enough. This applies to webpages and documentation, too;
> if you have found a documentation “bug”, you should supply replacement text
> and which pages it should go on.
>
> Remember, there are many other users that are not experiencing your problem.
> Otherwise you would have learned about it while reading the documentation
> and searching the Web (you did do that before complaining, didn't you?).

This is not complaining, it is just an informative e-mail, you may do
anything you want with it. Maybe the guy who wrote that have a lot of
free time to read documentation, maybe he was paid for supporting open
source software, I'm not.

> This means that very probably it is you who are doing something wrong, not
> the software.

Prescriptive statement, besides, it's always about the people.

>
> The people who wrote the software work very hard to make it work as well as
> possible.

Hasty generalization or composition

> If you claim you have found a bug, you'll be impugning their
> competence,

Irrelevant association, quality or correcteness of a particularization
doesn't imply inherently qualities of generalizations like competence.

> which may offend some of them even if you are correct. It's
> especially undiplomatic to yell “bug” in the Subject line.
>
> When asking your question, it is best to write as though you assume you are
> doing something wrong, even if you are privately pretty sure you have found
> an actual bug. If there really is a bug, you will hear about it in the
> answer. Play it so the maintainers will want to apologize to you if the bug
> is real, rather than so that you will owe them an apology if you have messed
> up."
>

He seems concerned about public behavior and specially the moral value
of apologies (although his vocabulary is really far from a
professional sociologist or specialist in moral ethics). Let's focus
to this "incorrect" behavior, you suggest it's not a bug, so it
shouldn't be fixed? Or you would not integrate a fix for it? I would
appreciate if you explain why the MNU #withStyleFor:do: isn't a bug so
I can adapt my tools around it.
Cheers,

Hernán