>>>>> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes:
Jonas> How is "matrix chat protocol" inadequate to tell what package
Jonas> does, which a change to capitalization of initial character
Jonas> fixes?
I think this is more confrontational than I'd like to see in Debian.
It is very common in many development communities when reviewing a
change to discuss problems introduced by that change in the issue where
that change is being reviewed.
So, in how we commonly use the BTS, I think the following sequence is
fine:
1) Hi. I'd like the description to be more clear.
2) Here's a proposed description. Is this description more clear.
3) Yes, that description is more clear, but you introduced a problem in
the new text.
That is, problems introduced by the change are reasonable to discuss
*while reviewing the change*
*even if they are not directly related to the gola of the cchange*.
If the complaint was about a alleged capitalization error already in the
description, it might be reasonable to ask for another bug.
But if as part of clarifying the description, you introduce a change
that someone believes is a capitalization error, I think that you are
being overly confrontational to push that off elsewhere.
Certainly my frustration is high enough that in the future I am much
less likely to try and suggest small problem or improvements than I was
before this conversation.
I also happen to believe that Python and Matrix should be capitalized in
that text under our standard style for descriptions.
I might be wrong about that, but it seems kind of unreasonable to push
that off to a different discussion
and to narrowly scope the questions as you have done.
