| 1 |
On 08/07/2013 01:57 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013, 23:46:08 schrieb Jeroen Roovers: |
| 3 |
>> 23:37:25 <willikins> rej, you have notes! [21:13] <mrueg> Let me |
| 4 |
>> rephrase this: Just a friendly notice to please refrain from rephrasing |
| 5 |
>> bug summaries from "Stabilize ${P}" to "${P} stable req". This just |
| 6 |
>> adds unneeded noise to the bug. I don't want this on bugs I've reported |
| 7 |
>> or am assigned to. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> This is my equally short and "friendly" note: It's not going to happen. |
| 11 |
>> Forget about it. They are not "your" bug reports and anyone is |
| 12 |
>> actually /welcome/ to improve them. Get used to it. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> To get technical on the "improvement" bit, we have agreed time on time |
| 15 |
>> that stating the atom and then the action is the way to go. The main |
| 16 |
>> reasons is that it helps people who need to regularly read /lists/ of |
| 17 |
>> bug summaries sort them better. Until we get a specific [Atoms] field |
| 18 |
>> implemented, it will need to stay this way. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Jer, |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> please stop making whitespace noise on bugs that you have absolutely no |
| 24 |
> relation to. It just causes unnecessary bugmail. If maintainers care they will |
| 25 |
> change it themselves. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Cheers, |
| 28 |
> Andreas |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Hi, |
| 31 |
with all due respect Andreas but I think you missed the point of Jer's |
| 32 |
mail. There's absolutely nothing like "relation to bug" or "bug |
| 33 |
maintainership". |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
"Your" bug can only mean that you're responsible for fixing the issue |
| 36 |
that was reported, not that you *own* that particular bit of bugzilla's |
| 37 |
database... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Not so hypothetical situation: someone files a bug: "Fancy KDE mail |
| 40 |
program fails with my gcc", you fix it and live happily ever after. |
| 41 |
How on earth am I supposed to find it when porting/stabilizing newer |
| 42 |
version of gcc? |
| 43 |
I expect (as many others) something similar to "=kde-base/kmail-4.8.10 |
| 44 |
fails to build with gcc-4.8" |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I deeply respect the work of people who fix bugzilla subjects to conform |
| 47 |
to "atom: issue" format. It saves me a great deal of time. |
| 48 |
Cheers, |
| 49 |
Kacper |
Archives