Re: Wording of message on closed bugs confusing.

[Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>]

Hi,

On 29 Mar 2000, Andreas Krüger wrote:
> Package: bugs.debian.org
> 
> I received an (automatically generated) mail message from the bug tracking
> system, i.e., owner@bugs.debian.org.  The message informed me a bug has
> been closed.  But the wording of that message was confusing.
> 
> (1) The subject ran:
>            
> > Subject: Bug#49962 acknowledged by developer (Debian FSS-upgrade process: man pages)
> 
> Shouldn't that line run:  Bug#NNN *closed* by developer?
> 
> (In this particular case, indeed the bug has _not_ been acknowledged, but
> more or less discussed out of existence...)

I think you're right, but I'm not 100% sure. The verb `to acknowledge' can
mean several things:

       v 1: discern; "His greed knew no limits" [syn: {recognize}, {know}]
       2: declare or acknowledge to be true; "He admitted his errors";
          "She acknowledged that she might have forgotten" [syn: {admit}]
          [ant: {deny}]
       3: acknowledge the receipt of [syn: {receipt}]
       4: acknowledge the presence of or acquaintance with [syn: {notice}]
       5: cite, as for an outstanding achievement [syn: {mention}, {cite}]
       6: express obligation for [syn: {recognize}]

Perhaps this verb is just too ambiguous...

Can anyone suggest any replacement other than "closed"?

> (2) The mail message continues:
> 
> > It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
> > Raphael Hertzog <rhertzog@hrnet.fr>.
> > 
> > Their explanation is attached below.  If this explanation is
> > unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
> > message then please contact the developer directly, or email
> > submit@bugs.debian.org or me.
> 
> I indeed mailed a reply to submit@bugs.debian.org,

Hm. You should have first done the first thing noted, contact the developer
directly.

> but that wasn't a good idea, for it promptly earned me a complaint (in a
> different message) from the bug tracking system:
> 
> > Your message didn't have a Package: line at the start (in the
> > pseudo-header following the real mail header), or didn't have a
> > psuedo-header at all.

Yeah, submit@bugs in that particular message should be changed to nnnn@bugs
address (no reason to open a new bug).

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification