[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The Second Great Spelling Check (Re: Package descriptions and making them better)

On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 09:29:25PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:

> * Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> [20011117 16:19]:
> > If you correct spelling errors in your packages which are included in my
> > diff, please either 1. Notify me via email (privately or to this thread)
> > 2. Include my name in your .changes file and upload, so that I get the
> > notification via -changes This way, I won't file bugs against packages
> > which have already been corrected.
> Although I really like what you're doing I think this is not acceptable.
> You really should be doing a spelling check on current packages before
> filing bugs.  I don't know how hard it would be but the ideal solution
> would be to automate most of the process (as a side effect of this, you
> could easily do another spelling checking in a year or so).

Running another check against current packages would be almost as much work
as the previous run.  Instead, what I will do is extract the descriptions
from the current packages, and see if the diffs still apply.

These packages are only a month old, and many of these errors I know have
been present for a very long time, so I don't expect that very many will
have been fixed during that time.

The reason I asked for notification is because I knew that many maintainers
would want to make the fix in their sources, but wouldn't make an upload
just for a simple spelling correction.  The idea was to avoid filing bugs
against fixed-but-not-uploaded packages, not fixed-and-uploaded packages.

> A good short term solution would be to check if the current control file
> has the ^- line from the diff.  If not, the description obviously changed
> (you could even check if it changed to the ^+ line -- then the patch has
> been incorporated).

This is essentially the same thing.

 - mdz

Reply to: