On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:11:32AM +0200, Florian Zumbiehl wrote: > > I searched through the Packages file a bit for typos and the like - below > > you find a diff of this package's description (a) showing what I think is > > wrong and (b) how I suggest it to be corrected. > > > > Description: Third Eye EPIC script > > Third Eye is a script for the EPIC IRC client, optimized for version 4pre2.004. > > - It's features include flood protection, nearly completely configurable ansi > > + Its features include flood protection, nearly completely configurable ansi > > Not only is this bug a duplicate, which is immediately obvious upon > opening the bugpage of this package, but you filed 63 similar bugs > without mailing -devel about your intentions first. This is important, > because then someone would have told you you're about to spam the BTS > with 63 duplicate bugs. 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. 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. I dream to receive patch in bug reports. Sending 63 patches do not really qualify as massive bug filling. Compare that with the massive bug filling entitled "The package description does not follow Debian policy" filled with severity important... > Please go over all your submitted bugs, and close the duplicate ones > yourself, and while at it, you could apologize to the maintainers for > causing them extra work for nothing. If you think it is a duplicate, you should merge them not close it summarily, especially since this one include a patch. So long for apologizing. Florian, improve your script so that the bug title include the name of the package next time. :-) Cheers, -- Bill. <email@example.com> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Description: PGP signature