Don Armstrong wrote:
> If the bug is merged, unmerge it, and use one of the existing bugs.
Maybe the message can make that more clear. For example, what did you
think of this suggestion?
-Bug is marked as being merged with others. Use an existing clone.
+Bug is marked as being merged with others. Please unmerge and reassign
+or unmerge, clone, and merge again.
> [...]
>
> -1 isn't a valid bug number, so the message is correct;
Yes, it is correct, but “did not pass regex check” is really not
helpful.
How about “-1 isn't a valid bug number”?
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> | Debbugs::Control::set_title('transcript', 'IO::Scalar=GLOB(0x31d4ce8)',
>> 'requester', 'Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]>', 'request_addr',
>> '[email protected]', 'request_msgid',
>> '<[email protected]>', 'request_subject', ...) called at
>> /usr/lib/debbugs/service line 879
>> | eval {...} called at /usr/lib/debbugs/service line 878
>>
>> Probably the debugging output should be suppressed, too.
>
> The debugging output is there so that I know what is going on when
> people report things, so no, it won't be suppressed.
Of course, I only meant suppressing the debug output in this well
understood case. It was only a wishlist bug, though, so if you like
the debugging output, that is fine.
BTW, I would be glad to prepare a patch if directed to the right
source tree to start from.
HTH,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
