Hi, Am Sonntag, den 29.07.2007, 22:35 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:30:14PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 28.07.2007, 17:50 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson: > > > I agree with Don. "Bug not marked as fixed" means something different > > > and doesn't accurately describe what the command is doing. English word > > > order is significant at times. :-) > > > > Then it’s doing something different that I thought it does. I used it to > > undo a „fixed in version 6.6.1-2“ which should not have been done in the > > first place, and judging from the bts web page on > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=423773 > > it really un-marked the bug as fixed (instead of marking is as not > > fixed, which I thought would be the “found” command). > > Your grasp of what it is doing is fine, but I was pointing out a > subtlety of English grammar. "Bug not marked as fixed" suggests that the > action of marking the bug as fixed has not been performed (sort of like > "I'm sorry, I failed to mark the bug as fixed because my disk blew up"). > To this native speaker's ears, that's not the same as removing the fixed > marker.
Ah, now I see your point. I guess I was implicit adding some form of to be there, reading “But is not marked as fixed...”, and not reading the “marked” as a action just done. > You're right that the current phrasing isn't quite ideal since it > creates confusion with "found". Perhaps "Bug no longer marked as fixed" > would be closer to the true meaning. Thats a good phrasing, I’m in favour of that. (Unless people read this “no longer” as referring to the package history, oh well, not easy :-)) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
