View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0003399 | unreal | ircd | public | 2007-06-18 10:21 | 2012-05-07 17:14 |
| Reporter | argvx | Assigned To | syzop | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | tweak | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| OS | FreeBSD | OS Version | 6.0 | ||
| Product Version | 3.3-alpha0 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 3.2.10-rc1 | ||||
| Summary | 0003399: numeric 307 description | ||||
| Description | "is a registered nick" must be changed to "has identified for this nick" because nick may not be identified at the moment, but registered with services, it can confuse some people. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Attached Files | |||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
> "is a registered nick" must be changed to "has identified for this nick" because nick may not be identified at the moment, but registered with services, it can confuse some people. It's fine the way it is... If your services are setting +r to a user that has not identified, they are what needs fixing. |
|
|
not setting mode +r, but registered anyway, because just not identified. description is not correct. for example if user is identified nick, services set mode +r and in /whois must be "has identified for this nick" |
|
|
If someone is using a registered nick but hasn't identified to it, they don't get +r, so /whois doesn't mention if the nick is registered. If someone then has +r, "has identified for this nick" is more accurate than "is a registered nick". |
|
|
AOL!!!! now that I got that out of my system, I agree that "has identified" is more useful than "is registered" esp as you could be using the nick, it is reg'd, but you're not id'd. |
|
|
+1 for topicstater. And so easy to fix :D |
|
|
Fixed in .2444 |
|
|
I don't know.. it does makes make sense to change this, actually. What do you think binki? |
|
|
Yeah, I think that the current description isn't that very clear. I suggest "is identified for this nick" or even just "is identified to services for this nick". I think that the "is identified" terminology would be understood by everybody today. I don't get where "has" comes in. Either the user is identified to services right now, meaning he ran /NS IDENTIFY at some point, or the user is not identified. |
|
|
This should probably be changed to "is identified to services for this nick" -- especially given the fact that we now have accountnames via ESVID. |
|
|
- Changed numeric 307 (RPL_WHOISREGNICK) to 'is identified for this nick', reported by fbi (0003399). http://hg.unrealircd.com/hg/unreal/rev/99377f34c7e0 I noticed other ircds use the 'has' form, but I trust binki's English / logic ;) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-06-18 10:21 | argvx | New Issue | |
| 2007-06-18 12:54 | Stealth | Note Added: 0014386 | |
| 2007-06-18 13:50 | argvx | Note Added: 0014387 | |
| 2007-06-18 19:14 | Shining Phoenix | Note Added: 0014388 | |
| 2007-06-19 19:20 | tabrisnet | Note Added: 0014391 | |
| 2007-06-20 15:50 | Bock | Note Added: 0014394 | |
| 2007-06-21 14:14 |
|
Status | new => resolved |
| 2007-06-21 14:14 |
|
Fixed in Version | => 3.3-alpha0 |
| 2007-06-21 14:14 |
|
Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2007-06-21 14:14 |
|
Assigned To | => stskeeps |
| 2007-06-21 14:14 |
|
Note Added: 0014396 | |
| 2011-07-19 18:07 | syzop | Note Added: 0016717 | |
| 2011-07-19 18:07 | syzop | Assigned To | stskeeps => |
| 2011-07-19 18:07 | syzop | Status | resolved => feedback |
| 2011-07-20 23:52 | ohnobinki | Note Added: 0016728 | |
| 2011-07-20 23:52 | ohnobinki | Status | feedback => confirmed |
| 2012-03-06 18:56 |
|
Note Added: 0016942 | |
| 2012-03-25 21:37 |
|
File Added: unreal-3399.patch | |
| 2012-03-25 21:37 |
|
Status | confirmed => has patch |
| 2012-05-07 17:14 | syzop | Note Added: 0016995 | |
| 2012-05-07 17:14 | syzop | Status | has patch => resolved |
| 2012-05-07 17:14 | syzop | Fixed in Version | 3.3-alpha0 => 3.2.10-rc1 |
| 2012-05-07 17:14 | syzop | Assigned To | => syzop |
