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
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
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
> >
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
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
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
> >
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo