On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 06:43:21PM -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > On 2012-02-06 18:06, Mark Brown wrote:
> >Yes, I had worked out that they were bug numbers. Thanks for that. > In that case, I do not understand why you call these numbers random. They are completely incomprehensibe in and of themselves, one needs to go find the BTS to figure out what they are. Coupled with the lack of information about your reasoning they render your mail unparasable. > If you are referring to my manipulation, I did include the following > explanation: > >This is actually a bug, see #585110. > Do you consider this as non-parsable? Yes, it is just a bald assertation which contains no explanation about why you believe this to be the case. There's no reference to the contents of any of the bugs nor discussion of their similarities (and honestly none of your followups leave me any the wiser). > This issue does concern me, and I follow this guideline myself, obviously. This is not the case, at least not in this example. I strongly suggest you reexamine your communication style. Anyway, fortunately it seems my revert was unneeded as your mails to control don't seem to have taken effect. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
