Re: patch numbers

2003-08-14 Thread Daniel Stone
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > The patch numbers are not being properly followed. > > I have been submitting some patches upstream that are already fixed. They > should be in a category not unlike patches from upstream so that we know > that they

patch numbers

2003-08-14 Thread Warren Turkal
Fellow X packagers, The patch numbers are not being properly followed. I have been submitting some patches upstream that are already fixed. They should be in a category not unlike patches from upstream so that we know that they can be deleted in the next version. I propose that 000 type patches

Re: patch numbers

2003-08-14 Thread Sven Luther
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:10:07AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > > The patch numbers are not being properly followed. > > > > I have been submitting some patches upstream that are already fixed. They > >

Re: patch numbers

2003-08-14 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 03:54, Warren Turkal wrote: > > I am braving the world the the X inner sanctum. Does anyone here know > if the X people monitor the bugzilla dilligently, A number of people do, in particular Egbert, otherwise he wouldn't have recommended this. > or should I post a message

Re: patch numbers

2003-08-12 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 03:54, Warren Turkal wrote: > > I am braving the world the the X inner sanctum. Does anyone here know > if the X people monitor the bugzilla dilligently, A number of people do, in particular Egbert, otherwise he wouldn't have recommended this. > or should I post a message

Re: patch numbers

2003-08-12 Thread Sven Luther
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:10:07AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > > The patch numbers are not being properly followed. > > > > I have been submitting some patches upstream that are already fixed. They > >

Re: patch numbers

2003-08-11 Thread Warren Turkal
Daniel Stone wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: >> The patch numbers are not being properly followed. > > #003 should be merged upstream, so other people can build Debian packages; > the > only part is where we do #define DebianMa

Re: patch numbers

2003-08-11 Thread Warren Turkal
Daniel Stone wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: >> The patch numbers are not being properly followed. > > #003 should be merged upstream, so other people can build Debian packages; > the > only part is where we do #define DebianMa

Re: patch numbers

2003-08-11 Thread Daniel Stone
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:24:45AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > The patch numbers are not being properly followed. > > I have been submitting some patches upstream that are already fixed. They > should be in a category not unlike patches from upstream so that we know > that they

patch numbers

2003-08-11 Thread Warren Turkal
Fellow X packagers, The patch numbers are not being properly followed. I have been submitting some patches upstream that are already fixed. They should be in a category not unlike patches from upstream so that we know that they can be deleted in the next version. I propose that 000 type patches