On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:17:55PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On 3/20/08, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Which is not what the bug was about. Anyways, now the bug is highjacked, > > I don't consider myself submitter anymore. > > it was not my intent to "hijack" the bug (that word has such a very > strong negative connotation to it). i was contributing to this bug > because i thought that my concern fit under the title and the initial > report and wanted to avoid creating a duplicate (and the associated > negativity of being derided for a duplicate submission). > > i don't think debian wants to discourage contributions to existing > bugs, but now i'm going to be second-guessing myself since its been > called hijacking. if i should have sumbitted a separate bug report, > you could have asked me to do so.
With package maintainer hat: 1. Yes, technically, this was a hijack of the bug. After all, you did get outside the original theme, even if you went to a pretty related one. 2. You shouldn't worry too much about that. Most maintainers will just clone the bug and create a new one in these cases. Some others might give you a hard time, but just take it as a learning oportunity ;) Anyways, I think Mike just wanted to say "I didn't report that, I don't want to know how it gets solved, since *my* issue is solved already."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
