Bug#434953: “not marked as fixed” instead of “marked as not fixed”
Am Sonntag, den 29.07.2007, 22:35 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:30:14PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 28.07.2007, 17:50 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson:
> > > I agree with Don. "Bug not marked as fixed" means something different
> > > and doesn't accurately describe what the command is doing. English word
> > > order is significant at times. :-)
> > Then it’s doing something different that I thought it does. I used it to
> > undo a „fixed in version 6.6.1-2“ which should not have been done in the
> > first place, and judging from the bts web page on
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=423773
> > it really un-marked the bug as fixed (instead of marking is as not
> > fixed, which I thought would be the “found” command).
> Your grasp of what it is doing is fine, but I was pointing out a
> subtlety of English grammar. "Bug not marked as fixed" suggests that the
> action of marking the bug as fixed has not been performed (sort of like
> "I'm sorry, I failed to mark the bug as fixed because my disk blew up").
> To this native speaker's ears, that's not the same as removing the fixed
Ah, now I see your point. I guess I was implicit adding some form of to
be there, reading “But is not marked as fixed...”, and not reading the
“marked” as a action just done.
> You're right that the current phrasing isn't quite ideal since it
> creates confusion with "found". Perhaps "Bug no longer marked as fixed"
> would be closer to the true meaning.
Thats a good phrasing, I’m in favour of that. (Unless people read this
“no longer” as referring to the package history, oh well, not easy :-))
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
firstname.lastname@example.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
JID: email@example.com | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata