Adam Kessel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I leave to you the task now of locating the bug report that you didn't >> bother looking for the first time. > > I got the same error, and quickly scanned bugs.debian.org/gnucash for > hash-for-each. I found this bug, with no explanation or pointer to the > "correct" bug. So now I will spend some time looking through bugs that > don't have "hash-for-each" in the subject line until I find the right > bug, and then find out whether there is a fix for the bug.
A bug like this, which certainly is of severity "grave" can be easily found. Just look at the very next grave report before 348452 filed against gnucash, titled "crash on startup" which *most certainly* is an accurate description of the bug. The strategy should be: 1) Look at existing bug reports and see if one of the titles might refer to the bug. Especially for a bug of such severity, which arose from a package upgrade. 2) If titles look like they might cover the bug, check first. > Is there any reason to subject users to this? Couldn't you just have > merged the bug report with the preexisting bug? I understand you're > trying to teach someone a lesson, but I think it's a disservice to our > users. I apologize for my language being over harsh. I agree that it was inappropriately so. At the same time, users of unstable are reasonably expected to be more savvy, and willing to spend the time to do more than quickly scanning a list looking for a single search tag. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
