On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 07:55:19 +0200, Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Am Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:40:05 +0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>>> as you both suggested. But I wonder if the BTS could have an "invalid"
>>> tag for such cases?!?
>>
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 07:55:19 +0200, Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Am Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:40:05 +0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>>> as you both suggested. But I wonder if the BTS could have an "invalid"
>>> tag for such cases?!?
>>
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:40:05 +0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>> as you both suggested. But I wonder if the BTS could have an "invalid"
>> tag for such cases?!?
>
> Why clog it up with invalid reports? They stay around as closed for a small
>
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:40:05 +0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>> as you both suggested. But I wonder if the BTS could have an "invalid"
>> tag for such cases?!?
>
> Why clog it up with invalid reports? They stay around as closed for a small
>
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> as you both suggested. But I wonder if the BTS could have an "invalid"
> tag for such cases?!?
Why clog it up with invalid reports? They stay around as closed for a small
while, then get archived...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find th
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> as you both suggested. But I wonder if the BTS could have an "invalid"
> tag for such cases?!?
Why clog it up with invalid reports? They stay around as closed for a small
while, then get archived...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
[...]
>> What is the generally accepted way within the "Debian culture" to deal
>> with such reports? Do I close the bug right away? Do I downgrade it?
>> Do I reassign it (in this case to gstreamer)?
> I'd close it. At the very worse tag it wontfix and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
[...]
>> What is the generally accepted way within the "Debian culture" to deal
>> with such reports? Do I close the bug right away? Do I downgrade it?
>> Do I reassign it (in this case to gstreamer)?
> I'd close it. At the very worse tag it wontfix and
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> What is the generally accepted way within the "Debian culture" to deal
> with such reports? Do I close the bug right away? Do I downgrade it?
> Do I reassign it (in this case to gstreamer)?
You can reassign it with the priority and bug title changed to w
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:43:25PM +0200, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> some days ago someone filed an obviously bogus bug against a package
> I'm co-maintaining (nautilus-media, bug #197352), i.e. he complained
> about being unable to install the gnome-core metapackage on hppa
> because nautilus-media on
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> What is the generally accepted way within the "Debian culture" to deal
> with such reports? Do I close the bug right away? Do I downgrade it?
> Do I reassign it (in this case to gstreamer)?
You can reassign it with the priority and bug title changed to w
Dear all,
some days ago someone filed an obviously bogus bug against a package
I'm co-maintaining (nautilus-media, bug #197352), i.e. he complained
about being unable to install the gnome-core metapackage on hppa
because nautilus-media on which gnome-core depends is unavailable on
that arch.
The
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:43:25PM +0200, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> some days ago someone filed an obviously bogus bug against a package
> I'm co-maintaining (nautilus-media, bug #197352), i.e. he complained
> about being unable to install the gnome-core metapackage on hppa
> because nautilus-media on
Dear all,
some days ago someone filed an obviously bogus bug against a package
I'm co-maintaining (nautilus-media, bug #197352), i.e. he complained
about being unable to install the gnome-core metapackage on hppa
because nautilus-media on which gnome-core depends is unavailable on
that arch.
The
14 matches
Mail list logo
