Bug#120351: attal_0.7.2-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2004-02-13 Thread Robert Millan
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 03:02:41AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > Thoroughly agreed. Also, Robert, please use the 'owner' command to > control@ rather than 'submitter' for saying that you're taking > responsibility for a WNPP bug somebody else submitted, as mentioned at >

Bug#120351: attal_0.7.2-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2004-02-13 Thread Robert Millan
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:07:41AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > (a couple of CCs dropped) > > Hi nyu, > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 11:11:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > It wasn't my intention to hijack the ITP. My impression was that after five > > months from your last message there was no

Bug#120351: attal_0.7.2-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2004-02-12 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:07:41AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 11:11:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > It wasn't my intention to hijack the ITP. My impression was that after five > > months from your last message there was no more activity, which turned out > > not to b

Bug#120351: attal_0.7.2-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2004-02-12 Thread Michael Banck
(a couple of CCs dropped) Hi nyu, On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 11:11:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > It wasn't my intention to hijack the ITP. My impression was that after five > months from your last message there was no more activity, which turned out > not to be the case. Sorry for the oversight

Bug#120351: attal_0.7.2-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2004-02-12 Thread Robert Millan
submitter 120351 Raphael Goulais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> thanks Hi Raphael (et al). It wasn't my intention to hijack the ITP. My impression was that after five months from your last message there was no more activity, which turned out not to be the case. Sorry for the oversight. On Wed, Feb 11, 2004