On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:41:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson scribbled:
[snip]
> > secretary) 'circut design' is black magic, so to satisfy the request
> > expressed in the bugs one would have to explan what circuits are, what is
> > the design process and why does the process require a program. Don't you
> > think it's a bit ridiculous to put such demands on a package description?
>
> Pah. The description's the description. Fix it.
How to fix something's that isn't broken? It's not our fault some guy
doesn't understand a description. And, actually, as long as I think that
meaningful descriptions are definitely a must, I don't like the fact that
the bug submitter didn't even care to read those he filed bugs on. Because
there were quite a few which were perfectly fine (including most of my
packages in that number) and they weren't 'important' for sure. An incorrect
(or too short) description does not hinder the package usability in any way,
and the 'important' severity is:
important
a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without
rendering it completely unusable to everyone.
a much more suitable severity would be:
minor
a problem which doesn't affect the package's usefulness, and is
presumably trivial to fix.
as fixing the description fits the above description perfectly.
So, is there a way to file bugs on bugs? Because I'd feel like doing so
right now :>
regards,
marek
Attachment:
pgp0DLFGloUdG.pgp
Description: PGP signature