On 20041019T134416+0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > 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.
In other words, it is a duplicate report with a patch. The proper thing (with respect to this individual case) would have been to send the patch to #268503 without opening a new bug. > 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. He was not flamed; he was being corrected about an important piece of Debian etiquette. > I dream to receive patch in bug reports. Sending 63 patches > do not really qualify as massive bug filling. The issue is not whether it was massive but whether it was a mass bug report. There is a difference: the latter is usually indicated when many bugs are opened on a similar issue against several package based on a (semi)automated search for a particular kind of bug in the Debian archive. > If you think it is a duplicate, you should merge them not close it > summarily, especially since this one include a patch. That is true. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
