On 2012-02-06 19:19, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 06:43:21PM -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
On 2012-02-06 18:06, Mark Brown wrote:
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.
They are completely incomprehensibe in and of themselves, one needs to
go find the BTS to figure out what they are.
I was not aware that comprehensibility was a property of numbers.
Numbers are just numbers, there is no need to do anything with the BTS
to figure out what a number is.
Coupled with the lack of
information about your reasoning they render your mail unparasable.
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?
Yes, it is just a bald assertation which contains no explanation about
why you believe this to be the case.
If you understood the explanation, I fail to see why you call it
non-parsable.
This issue does concern me, and I follow this guideline myself, obviously.
This is not the case, at least not in this example.
Why do you think so?
I strongly suggest
you reexamine your communication style.
Thanks, but this will be difficult without more specific advice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
