I think these error messages can be improved:

| Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:
|
| > clone 577650 -1
| Bug#577650: libcupt-perl: Does not handle automatic upgrade of git packages
| Bug is marked as being merged with others. Use an existing clone.

Huh?  Does that mean I have to unmerge before cloning?  Once I understand
this, I’ll be happy to file a separate bug for it.

| > retitle -1 conflict on git-completion should be versioned to avoid dpkg bug
| Failed to set the title of -1: The 'bug' parameter ("-1") to Debbugs::Control::set_title did not pass regex check

I would prefer something to the effect of

  Failed to set the title of -1: undefined psuedo-bug-number -1

or

  Failed to set the title of -1: no such bug, since corresponding clone failed

| 	Debbugs::Control::set_title('transcript', 'IO::Scalar=GLOB(0x31d4ce8)', 'requester', 'Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>', 'request_addr', 'control@bugs.debian.org', 'request_msgid', '<20100413224129.GA1922@progeny.tock>', 'request_subject', ...) called at /usr/lib/debbugs/service line 879
| 	eval {...} called at /usr/lib/debbugs/service line 878

Probably the debugging output should be suppressed, too.

[...]
| > thanks
| Stopping processing here.

Thoughts?
Jonathan

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Ah, found it:

http://bugs.debian.org/474742

This is super counter-intuitive.  So let me add another item to this
error message wishlist (that makes 3):

I think this should say:

  Bug is marked as being merged with others. Please unmerge and reassign
  or unmerge, clone, and merge again.

Why would I be asking to clone if there were an existing clone to use?

HTH,
Jonathan

forcemerge 577487 57729
thanks

If the bug is merged, unmerge it, and use one of the existing bugs.

[...]


The debugging output is there so that I know what is going on when
people report things, so no, it won't be suppressed.


Don Armstrong

Don Armstrong wrote:

Maybe the message can make that more clear.  For example, what did you
think of this suggestion?

 -Bug is marked as being merged with others. Use an existing clone.
 +Bug is marked as being merged with others. Please unmerge and reassign
 +or unmerge, clone, and merge again.

Yes, it is correct, but “did not pass regex check” is really not
helpful.

How about “-1 isn't a valid bug number”?

Of course, I only meant suppressing the debug output in this well
understood case.  It was only a wishlist bug, though, so if you like
the debugging output, that is fine.

BTW, I would be glad to prepare a patch if directed to the right
source tree to start from.

HTH,
Jonathan

I'd prefer not to add more verbiage there, and stick it in the
documentation instead. [And it certainly shouldn't say to reassign;
the critical aspect here is just that you just unmerge and use it...
thus, use an existing clone.]

Because the test is done using a regex, and any failure in the options
passed to that control implementation would then fail with that
message, which would be incorrect.

http://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/debbugs and mainline.


Don Armstrong

Don Armstrong wrote:

Thanks.  I assume this should be

http://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/debian

and that I should fetch with bzr.

Also thanks for the other explanations.  I’ll look at this some
more tomorrow.

Regards,
Jonathan