On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:21:45PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > > It's not much of a justification -- it basically amounts to "my way is
> > > right" followed by a personal insult to anyone who disagrees.
> >
> > Hmm. I feel you may not have read the first two paragraphs of that, and
> > have o
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 01:02:10PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Does Debian have a specific policy about this? 'cause I don't
> > think either (s)he or his/her type replacements are nearly as
> > aesthetic...
> Well I tend to use "they" / "their" myself, which is in fairly common
> usage. e.g.:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:57:13PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> (Replying to d-devel as per m-f-t and d-qa as per request).
>
> Thanks for your work with the RFH tag; this is a great idea.
>
> One request though: Could you please change the the tag description to
> use gender-neutral language?
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 04:31:54PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Paul Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Anyway, I just want to draw someone's attention to the
> > net-snmp package (libsnmp5 and snmpd for example) which has
> > three RC bugs against it,
(I'm CC-ing the NMU'er of ucd-snmp in case he's interested and
not subscribed to debian-qa. Hello Daniel! And obviously the
package maintainer. Hello David.)
I hope this is the right place to ask
Anyway, I just want to draw someone's attention to the
net-snmp package (libsnmp5 and snmpd for e
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:26:06PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:46:10AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
> > testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
> >
> > The question is, since this is also t
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:15:03PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Paul Hampson wrote:
>
> > Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
> > testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
> >
> > The question is, since this is also true of 2.4
Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
The question is, since this is also true of 2.4.24-1 (I
just checked then) would it be bad to tag this bug with
'sarge' as well as 'sid'?
Am I right in thinking that a bug tagged 'sarge' is ignored
by the te
8 matches
Mail list logo
