Am Mittwoch, 7. August 2013, 10:46:04 schrieb Kacper Kowalik:
> 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.
> >>
> >
> > 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
>
[...]
>
> 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.That's fine, bug wranglers are doing a great job there. However, I'm also sick of getting bugmail because $RANDOM_DEV thinks * TRACKER is better than Tracker, * every atom needs a "=" in front, and * "Please stabilize XXX" should always be replaced by "XXX stabilization". Remeber, I've been talking about effective whitespace noise. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde) dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
