Re: Accepted kaffe 1:1.1.1-1 (i386 source)
On Saturday 30 August 2003 03:47, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > A script to convert eg.
> >
> > * New upstream release .* (Closes: #1, #2, #3)
> >
> > to
> >
> > * New upstream release \1
> > * fixed "BTS summary line of #1" Closes: #1
> > * fixed "BTS summary line of #2" Closes: #2
> > * fixed "BTS summary line of #3" Closes: #3
> >
> > in changelogs would probably go a lot further to correcting this very
> > minor issue than reopening dozens of bug reports that belong closed,
> > annoying users with BTS garbage, and repeating the same thread on
> > debian-devel over and over.
>
> One big problem with this approach is that the same maintainers who are
> too lazy to write proper entries for bug-closers in their changelog
> entries are going to be too lazy to ensure that a bug report has a
> meaningful summary in the first place.
maybe that should be a rule in policy. the issue of proper notification is
valid, or not? there should be a means to at least reduce redundant bug
reports, other than some nasty response indicating that a bug has already
been reported or attended. us plain old users play a valid part in the
project, but it's beginning to feel as though the gap between users and
maintainers requires a whole new dialogue. it's not unreasonable to expect
that user bug reports deserve a coherent response, including some degree of
clarification of the means of bug resolution.
ben
Reply to: