Bug#313219: gedit: Full backtrace
Hi
Thank you for your message explaining the situation. I have answered in
more detail below.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:52:14 +0200
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005, Barrie Millar wrote:
> >
> > I would, but the bug seems to of completely disappeared. From what
> > little I can tell from a Google Groups search on the bug number, the
bug
> > has been solved and placed in experimental.
>
> It did not diappear, nor was it placed in experimental.
I knew the bug couldn't of disappeared, but I couldn't find any record
of where it had gone to. With regard to the comment about
the bug being solved in experimental, I knew it referred to libc6, but
hadn't made that clear above. My apologies for causing the
misunderstanding.
>
> > However, just for future record, it would of been really nice
> > if some notification had been made of that fact to me. I received
> > an email informing me the bug had been transferred to gnome-vfs2 and
> > after then the trail went completely cold. That wasn't really
> > encouraging from a bug-management system.
>
> This is what I usually do, but every person has a different approach
on
> this, there's no such thing such as fixed rule. When some
information
> is required from the submitter, the submitter is Cc:ed via the
> "313219-submitter@bugs.debian.org".
I understand, that seems to make logical sense.
>
> It is made extremely difficult to close a bug without a notice to the
> submitter, you should get a message whatever happens.
>
> You can follow the administrative requests or the other commends on
the
> bug at <http://bugs.debian.org/313219>.
Thanks, that address is useful. I wasn't aware of this or I could of
kept better tags on what was going on.
>
> Here's what happened to your bug: someone had the same problem and
> posted a followup. Another GNOME maintainer responded, and the
> followuper pinpointed the root of the bug. Finally, it was found
that
> experimental libc solves this bug, and the bug was reassigned to
libc6.
Yes, I saw these on my later visit to Google Groups. When I was thinking
of posted the backtrace you requested initially that I ran into a
problem. I couldn't find the required bug on any of the Debian packages
I had seen referred to in the emails I have required regarding the
issue. At this stage, I was feeling somewhat confused about what had
happened to the bug-report.
>
> I'm not sure you would have been pleased to receive the 7 messages
> following yours in the report, nor the administrative responses and
> requests, I'm confident you understand why this is the default
> behavior.
I suppose I can understand why this is the default behaviour. However,
in all honestly I would of preferred to receive all 7 messages. It would
of kept me up to date as to the situation. Instead of receiving 7
messages, I instead contacted you and read through them all on Google
Groups in confusion, wondering what had happened to the bug report. I'm
sure you can understand that receiving all 7 would of saved more
time in this incident and kept me better informed.
>
> Would you have waited for next libc6 upload (when experimental's
> version reaches unstable), you would have received a "bug closed"
email
> with the changelog in this upload.
They may well be. However, since I was attempting to post some
additional information you yourself requested in regard to the bug,
waiting for the bug closed message would not of been useful. In
addition, it may take/of taken several days for libc6 to move from
experimental to unstable, thereby leaving me in the dark so to speak.
However, it is handy to know that a closed bug message will always be
sent to the submitter, thanks for that.
Regards,
Barrie
Reply to: