On Jo, 15 mai 14, 13:43:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
Andrei POPESCU writes (Re: ignoring bugs with no maintainer (Re: Removal of
emacs23 from unstable/testing)):
Last time someone (Bcc'd) tried to tackle these (admittedly without
contacting the maintainer in advance) the contributor was prevented
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
For this concrete case, might I suggest following course of action:
1. ping all submitters of emacs21 (and related) bugs to test against
recent emacs (at a minimum emacs23 from wheezy) and deal with the bug as
needed
2. if no response within
On 15/05/2014 17:06, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
For this concrete case, might I suggest following course of action:
1. ping all submitters of emacs21 (and related) bugs to test against
recent emacs (at a minimum emacs23 from wheezy) and deal with
Jean-Christophe Dubacq jcduba...@free.fr writes:
Completely at random, I tested this one:
• #128748 [w| | ] [emacs21] emacs21: M-x word-count (from xemacs) is
missing?
It happens that this one is solved in emacs24, not in emacs23.
What should be done: reassign to emacs23 (which
Andrei POPESCU writes (Dealing with emacs21 (and related) bugs [was: Re:
ignoring bugs with no maintainer]):
On Jo, 15 mai 14, 13:43:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
One of my bugs was involved in this situation and I was one of the
people (the person?) who objected. I contacted the maintainer who
On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 18:48 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
For example, one of the oldest open emacs bugs is my own bug #9741
from May 1997. It should clearly remain open.
[...]
That is your opinion. Really, it is up to the maintainer(s) whether
they leave a bug open (or tag it 'wontfix')
6 matches
Mail list logo
