[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Dependency Removed: => bugs #62776 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #66112 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Dependency Removed: => bugs #65955 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Dependency Removed: => bugs #64004 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Dependency Removed: => bugs #62264 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #65099 (group groff): Dropped dep on bug #42870. See bug #66051 for why. ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent via Sava

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Dependency Removed: => bugs #42870 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #63074 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #42870 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #66031 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #65099 (group groff): [comment #4 comment #4:] > I submit bug #63827 as something that should be addressed in some manner before release, even if only in the form of a stopgap like resyncing groff's pdfmark subtree with the substantially updated code upstream. It's on th

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #63142 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #62787 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #65108 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #65955 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #65954 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #63827 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #65724 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #65099 (group groff): I submit bug #63827 as something that should be addressed in some manner before release, even if only in the form of a stopgap like resyncing groff's pdfmark subtree with the substantially updated code upstream.

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug #65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #52463 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Follow-up Comment #3, bug#65099 (group groff): [comment #2 comment #2:] > [comment #1 comment #1:] > > Is bug #59442 worth considering for 1.24? > > I think so, yes. And the file name-handling thing that needs its own > ticket. Bug #65108 filed and depended upon. _

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #63635 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #62933 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #64071 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #59442 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Follow-up Comment #2, bug#65099 (group groff): [comment #1 comment #1:] > Is bug #59442 worth considering for 1.24? I think so, yes. And the file name-handling thing that needs its own ticket. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Follow-up Comment #1, bug#65099 (group groff): Is bug #59442 worth considering for 1.24? ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent via Savannah https:

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #62776 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #64004 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #62264 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #63583 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #62830 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #64683 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

Update of bug#65099 (group groff): Depends on: => bugs #65098 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #65099] 1.24.0 release goals

URL: Summary: 1.24.0 release goals Group: GNU roff Submitter: gbranden Submitted: Sun 31 Dec 2023 01:51:36 AM UTC Category: General Severity: 4 - Important