Bug#269189: Mail server reference card is outdated

[Loic Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

     Hi,


Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - Tue, Aug 31, 2004:

> >  I think the mail server reference card is outdated, for two reasons:
> >  - it states that you can't merge bugs which don't have the exact same
> >    tags, but you can (see below),
> Where does it explicitly state that? I don't see it (and indeed it isn't
> true).

 Hmm, it seems I misunderstood the section on merge in the
 server-control page (<http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control>) which
 says:

 "Before bugs can be merged they must be in exactly the same state:
 either all open or all closed, with the same forwarded-to upstream
 author address or all not marked as forwarded, all assigned to the same
 package or package(s) (an exact string comparison is done on the
 package to which the bug is assigned), and all of the same severity. If
 they don't start out in the same state you should use reassign, reopen
 and so forth to make sure that they are before using merge. Titles are
 not required to match, and will not be affected by the merge."

 While not strictly necessary, it would do no harm to say that the tags
 other than upstream might differ.

> I wonder if we're looking at the same version of the text. The current
> version includes examples:
> tags bugnumber [ + | - | = ] tag [ tag ... ]
>     Sets tags for the bug report #bugnumber. No notification is sent to the
>     user who reported the bug. Setting the action to + means to add each given
>     tag, - means to remove each given tag, and = means to ignore the current
>     tags and set them afresh to the list provided. The default action is
>     adding.

 Well I've looked at both for various reasons, for example I knew which
 tags I wanted to add, and just cliked on the reference card to check
 wether I could put two on the tag command, and this is where I read
 (<http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-refcard>):
    tags bugnumber  [ + | - | = ] tag 

 Somehow, an update of the syntax is probably missing in the refcard.

 Of course, with the full syntax, one can understand that the "+" sign
 might appear only once.

   Regards,

-- 
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>