Your message dated Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:07:49 +0100
with message-id <87y5vt8162....@asustour.olivierberger.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#647828: notfound doesn't seem to handle versions the
way it should
has caused the Debian Bug report #647828,
regarding notfound doesn't seem to handle versions the way it should
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
647828: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647828
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debbugs
It seems to me that there's a problem on versions graph management in
the notfound command.
I tried to mark the bug as fixed in revelation 0.4.11-9.2, which should
work IMHO, since http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586646
only reports it found in version revelation/0.4.11-6
Is there anything I missed with the syntax of notfound ?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
--- Begin Message ---
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> notfound 586646 0.4.11-9.2
Bug #586646 [revelation] DeprecationWarning: the sha module is deprecated
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #586646 to the same values
previously set
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
586646: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586646
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- End Message ---
--
Olivier BERGER
(OpenPGP: 4096R/7C5BB6A5)
http://www.olivierberger.com/weblog/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi.
"Adam D. Barratt" <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
>
> If you want to mark the bug as fixed in a particular version, use the
> predictably named "fixed" command.
>
Stupid me.
Thanks for your kind explanation.
I guess we could imagine an improved 'notfound' implementation which would
attempt to do a 'fixed' in case there wasn't any 'found' yet... but in
the meantime, I should RTFM more ;)
Sorry about the bothering.
Best regards,
--
Olivier BERGER
(OpenPGP: 4096R/7C5BB6A5)
http://www.olivierberger.com/weblog/
--- End Message ---
