#1115895 server-refcard not in sync with server-control

Package:
debbugs
Source:
debbugs
Submitter:
Bill Allombert
Date:
2025-09-21 19:53:01 UTC
Severity:
normal
#1115895#5
Date:
2025-09-21 10:10:57 UTC
From:
To:
Package: debbugs
Version: 2.6.4
Severity: normal

Hello Don,

Compare:
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-refcard.en
and
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control.en

server-refcard is missing the following commands that are present in server-control:

    affects
    summary
    outlook
    fixed | notfixed
    archive | unarchive
    user | usertag | usercategory

Also, server-control does not match the documentation in the GIT repository, and
in the Debian package. Do you know where is the source for this webpage ?

Cheers,
#1115895#8
Date:
2025-09-21 18:21:49 UTC
From:
To:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025, Bill Allombert wrote:n
The source for it is webml: https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/-/tree/master/english/Bugs?ref_type=heads
#1115895#13
Date:
2025-09-21 18:37:49 UTC
From:
To:
So it is not in debbugs GIT.
Do you have a suggestion for fixing this bug ?

Cheers,
#1115895#18
Date:
2025-09-21 18:43:32 UTC
From:
To:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025, Bill Allombert wrote:n

A merge request to webml can do it; I think I still have commit rights
to the repo. [If the refcard in debbugs is fixed, it's not to hard to
rewrite the changes for webml.]
#1115895#23
Date:
2025-09-21 19:16:09 UTC
From:
To:
But we also need to go the other way, convert server-control.wml to
server-control.in.html...

Cheers,
#1115895#28
Date:
2025-09-21 19:31:24 UTC
From:
To:
I also suggest to list the commands in the refcard by alphabetic order.

Cheers,
#1115895#33
Date:
2025-09-21 19:51:01 UTC
From:
To:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025, Bill Allombert wrote:n

Yep. I'd personally suggest doing the modifications to the wml and then
updating the debbugs source to match.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025, Bill Allombert wrote:n

The problem with that is that you would separate the similar commands
from each other. All of the not* commands would be together instead of
with the corresponding * command. merge, unmerge, and forcemerge would
be separated, etc.

They're currently in groups with similar commands together. [Making the
grouping explicit with a short summary of what the commands do might be
good.]