On Saturday 30 August 2003 03:47, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > A script to convert eg. > > > > * New upstream release .* (Closes: #1, #2, #3) > > > > to > > > > * New upstream release \1 > > * fixed "BTS summary line of #1" Closes: #1 > > * fixed "BTS summary line of #2" Closes: #2 > > * fixed "BTS summary line of #3" Closes: #3 > > > > in changelogs would probably go a lot further to correcting this very > > minor issue than reopening dozens of bug reports that belong closed, > > annoying users with BTS garbage, and repeating the same thread on > > debian-devel over and over. > > One big problem with this approach is that the same maintainers who are > too lazy to write proper entries for bug-closers in their changelog > entries are going to be too lazy to ensure that a bug report has a > meaningful summary in the first place.
maybe that should be a rule in policy. the issue of proper notification is valid, or not? there should be a means to at least reduce redundant bug reports, other than some nasty response indicating that a bug has already been reported or attended. us plain old users play a valid part in the project, but it's beginning to feel as though the gap between users and maintainers requires a whole new dialogue. it's not unreasonable to expect that user bug reports deserve a coherent response, including some degree of clarification of the means of bug resolution. ben
