On 2012-02-06 18:06, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 05:39:36PM -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
On 2012-02-06 14:02, Mark Brown wrote:
It means that your mail contained a bunch of random numbers and didn't
elucidate what you were thinking when you merged the bugs at all.
My mail contained 2 numbers, 565294 and 585110.
565294 is the number of this issue report.
585110 is the number of a duplicate issue report which you can see
on http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=585110
Yes, I had worked out that they were bug numbers. Thanks for that.
In that case, I do not understand why you call these numbers random.
If you still do not understand any number, it would be preferable to
request an explanation than to write random comments.
I tend to put about as much effort in as I'm seeing in the thing I'm
responding to; what I saw was a drive by tweak of some bugs with no
parsable explanation.
If you are referring to my manipulation, I did include the following
explanation:
This is actually a bug, see #585110.
Do you consider this as non-parsable?
Frankly I could barely tell if this was
intentional, it looked like a script gone wrong.
If a script has gone wrong, commenting its actions with something random
is unlikely to help fix the problem.
The
bugs don't appear to be the same bug at all, the one bug is talking
about adding an icon and the other bug is talking about the information
that's present not being correct.
The first bug is not talking about adding an icon, it is reporting
that the icon is missing. Both reports are about the same problem,
In what way? Simply asserting something doesn't make it true. The
report makes no mention of icons whatsover. It does mention errors in
the type field, and other errors in the existing content, but doesn't
appear to have anything to say about having an icon.
By "first bug", I meant #565294, not #585110.
the former describes the symptom, while the latter describes the
cause (or, perhaps more accurately, a different symptom which makes
the cause obvious).
Again, this appears to bear little if any relation to the contents of
the bug.
I don't know which "bug" you are referring to.
By the way, when manipulating issue reports, please explain your
modifications if they have no obvious justification, in particular
when changing the report type.
If this is an issue which concerns you it might be worth taking your own
advice on board.
This issue does concern me, and I follow this guideline myself, obviously.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
