On 08/07/2013 01:57 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. August 2013, 23:46:08 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
>> 23:37:25 <willikins> rej, you have notes! [21:13] <mrueg> Let me
>> rephrase this: Just a friendly notice to please refrain from rephrasing
>> bug summaries from "Stabilize ${P}" to "${P} stable req". This just
>> adds unneeded noise to the bug. I don't want this on bugs I've reported
>> or am assigned to.
>>
>>
>> This is my equally short and "friendly" note: It's not going to happen.
>> Forget about it. They are not "your" bug reports and anyone is
>> actually /welcome/ to improve them. Get used to it.
>>
>> To get technical on the "improvement" bit, we have agreed time on time
>> that stating the atom and then the action is the way to go. The main
>> reasons is that it helps people who need to regularly read /lists/ of
>> bug summaries sort them better. Until we get a specific [Atoms] field
>> implemented, it will need to stay this way.
>>
>
> Jer,
>
> please stop making whitespace noise on bugs that you have absolutely no
> relation to. It just causes unnecessary bugmail. If maintainers care they
> will
> change it themselves.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas Hi, with all due respect Andreas but I think you missed the point of Jer's mail. There's absolutely nothing like "relation to bug" or "bug maintainership". "Your" bug can only mean that you're responsible for fixing the issue that was reported, not that you *own* that particular bit of bugzilla's database... Not so hypothetical situation: someone files a bug: "Fancy KDE mail program fails with my gcc", you fix it and live happily ever after. How on earth am I supposed to find it when porting/stabilizing newer version of gcc? I expect (as many others) something similar to "=kde-base/kmail-4.8.10 fails to build with gcc-4.8" I deeply respect the work of people who fix bugzilla subjects to conform to "atom: issue" format. It saves me a great deal of time. Cheers, Kacper
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
