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

Re: Do _not_ file massbugs without consulting debian-devel (Re: Bug#277210: package description typo(s) and the like)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:26:58PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20041019T134416+0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Please cool down, if you compare with #268503, this one includes a 
> > patch whereas the original did not, so it is not a duplicate but an
> > improvement.
> In other words, it is a duplicate report with a patch.  The proper thing
> (with respect to this individual case) would have been to send the patch
> to #268503 without opening a new bug.

Meanwhile, Florian merged the bugs that were a duplicate. He followed-up
on my initial mail by private mail, and explained why he did the filing
the way he did. Let me state for the record he did a lot of things right
(mailing to maintonly, including a package-specific part in the template
(even being a patch), filing non-bogus bugs, and filing at the right
severity), I was just annoyed at the two things that he happened to not
do (check for existing reports about the issue, mailing his intentention
to -devel). Those two also happened to be the ones that could have
prevented the duplicates.

He obviously gave thought to these issues, and didn't do the massfiling
lightly. It was due to an unfortunately wrong assumption that he
concluded an announcement to -devel would not be needed.
> > It seems this bug submitter has made much more effort toward quality bug
> > reports than the previous attempt at fixing typos so I see no point
> > flaming him.
> He was not flamed; he was being corrected about an important piece of
> Debian etiquette.

It is never ever my intention to be part of a flame, I cc'd -devel
only in the hope to prevent this (mass filing without prior discussion
on -devel) from happening again, and I mailed Florian himself to tell
him what he IMHO failed to do.
> > If you think it is a duplicate, you should merge them not close it
> > summarily, especially since this one include a patch.
> That is true.

I'll do so for the particular bug this thread was linked to, you're
right, particularly because of the extra info.


Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)

Reply to: