evince filename-with-colon-innit horkage (Jaunty)

thanks for the report, because those are being treated as a location? could you test if gvfs-open works with that? this is probably a gvfs issue.

Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported, but feel free to report any other bugs you find.

If it's a duplicate, close with DUPLICATE and link to the bug so I can subscribe to it.

you're welcome to help us to find the right number.

there is no need to use this tone, the people working on those bugs are busy and you could look for the number yourself rather than asking them to do that for you

With all due respect to Pedro & Sebastien, I think that Giuseppe is right here.
Until now, it has been standard procedure to mark duplicate bugs as duplicate, with a link to the master bug and a comment giving this standard response:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#A%20duplicate

I am not very comfortable with this new trend, to just close as invalid. Not all users know what is a duplicate bug and how to search for it (let alone reliably find it). It is our job to find the duplicates for them and to help them follow the bug resolution process (upstream reporting, in progress, fix committed and released).

As a personal opinion, I think it's better to leave the bug open (as New) until we have the time to actually find the duplicate, than to mark as invalid and leave the bug reporter in the dark...

I apologize if you got a bad "tone" from my ascii text; tragically ascii is devoid of any extra cues other than the words and no negatiive tone was intended.

Regarding bug hunting, I *had* hunted for the same sort of bugs. I chased down a similar bug earlier in gnumeric a year or two ago. The problem there was that the colon was causing the url identifier to believe that the file is a url of "<pathuptocolon>:<stuffaftercolon".

The same is the case here. forcing a file:// url works regarless of colon. The bug is triggered on colon, and that's what I searched for.

Now I'll go post most of this on the other bug.

Letting all the duplicates open means that bug lists become useless due to all the noise, closing those is not ideal but it's better than getting in the way of people who are using those lists to know what work is required

[quote]Letting all the duplicates open means that bug lists become useless due to all the noise, closing those is not ideal but it's better than getting in the way of people who are using those lists to know what work is required[/quote]

The point is that, if you assert that it's a dupe, you link to the dupe before closing. The closing is a given, but the dup-linking is a prerequisite.

looking for exact number is quite some work which can be spent on bug fixing rather

[quote]looking for exact number is quite some work which can be spent on bug fixing rather[/quote]

If you're going to claim something, back it up. It's useful for the person requesting and it's not like I'm without other crap to be doing besides looking up what bug you may have been thinking of.

Your claim, your responsibility IMHO. The wiki page seems to agree.

nobody denies that ideally bugs should be closed using the correct duplicate number, there is lot of duplicates filed on the desktop bugs though and not so many people working on cleaning those bugs so either the duplicate stay open and makes the buglists hard to work on or the triagers close duplicates and makes job easier