On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Shai Berger wrote:
>> Both grave and critical refer to actual data loss. Using the term
>> serious isn't particularly useful since that falls outside those two
>> categories anyway.
>>
>
> Again, you're being tautological, repeating your terms rather than defining
On Monday 19 January 2015 00:54:41 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Shai Berger wrote:
> > I am asking about "serious" vs. "non-serious" because those are the terms
> > used by reportbug ("non-serious data loss" is a reason to mark a bug
> > "grave").
>
> Both grave and cr
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Shai Berger wrote:
> I am asking about "serious" vs. "non-serious" because those are the terms used
> by reportbug ("non-serious data loss" is a reason to mark a bug "grave").
Both grave and critical refer to actual data loss. Using the term
serious isn't particul
On Sunday 18 January 2015 23:51:01 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Shai Berger wrote:
> > Those "easily recreatable" bits represent a significant part of my mail
> > workflow. Almost any data can be recreated by repeating the work that
> > created it. Your claims essentia
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Shai Berger wrote:
>> > So, the bits marking messages as "read" or "unread" are not data? What,
>> > pray tell, are they?
>>
>> Easily recreatable bit flags.
>>
>
> So data isn't lost if it is "easily recreatable"? Really?
No.
> By that argument, there really sho
On Sunday 18 January 2015 21:46:52 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Shai Berger wrote:
> > On Friday 16 January 2015 01:45:53 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >> > However, the problem reported here is not a usability problem. If a
> >> > mail client losing record of which mails ha
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Shai Berger wrote:
> On Friday 16 January 2015 01:45:53 Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> > However, the problem reported here is not a usability problem. If a mail
>> > client losing record of which mails have been read and which haven't
>> > isn't "non-serious data loss",
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 611067 +moreinfo
Bug #611067 [kmail] kmail: crash on attachment with preview
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
611067: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=6110
Your message dated Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:57:14 +0100
with message-id <5389964.jCbOUbqACP@tabin.local>
and subject line Re: kmail: KDE bug 207779 (solved over there) affecting Kmail
HTML messages in Squeeze
has caused the Debian Bug report #614514,
regarding kmail: KDE bug 207779 (solved over there)
tag 611067 +moreinfo
thanks
Hey,
This bug is quite old. Is this behaviour still valid?
Regads,
sandro
--
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:05:45 +0100 Vladislav Kurz
wrote:
> Package: kmail
> Version: 4:4.4.7-3
> Severity: normal
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Kmail crashes in the following scenario:
>
> Compos
tag 610471 +moreinfo
thanks
Hey,
This bug is quite old. Is this behaviour still valid?
Regads,
sandro
--
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:17 +0100 Landry MINOZA
wrote:
> Package: kmail
> Version: 4:4.4.7-2
> Severity: normal
>
> --- Please enter the report below this line. ---
> On a french laptop
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 610471 +moreinfo
Bug #610471 [kmail] [kmail] Bad behavior of next unread message shortcut (+)
with a french laptop keybord
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
610471: http:/
forcemerge 735261 611153
thanks
Hey,
unfortunatelly this problem still exists in 4.14.2. Inside 735261 there is
much more discussion about the read/unread behaviour.
Regads,
sandro
--
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:53:39 -0500 Randy Edwards
wrote:
> Package: kmail
> Version: 4:4.4.7-3
>
> Running
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 735261 611153
Bug #735261 [kmail] kmail2 randomly marks read messages as unread
Bug #735261 [kmail] kmail2 randomly marks read messages as unread
Marked as found in versions kdepim/4:4.4.7-3.
Bug #611153 [kmail] KMail not setting unread
Version check failed:
Your upload included the source package qbs, version 1.3.3+dfsg-3,
however unstable already has version 1.3.3+dfsg-3.
Uploads to unstable must have a higher version than present in unstable.
===
Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your fil
qbs_1.3.3+dfsg-3_kfreebsd-amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
qbs_1.3.3+dfsg-3.dsc
qbs_1.3.3+dfsg-3.debian.tar.xz
qbs_1.3.3+dfsg-3_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
libqbscore1_1.3.3+dfsg-3_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
libqbsqtprofilesetup1_1.3.3+dfsg-3_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
qbs-
16 matches
Mail list logo
