My apologies, I didn't notice that Satheesh had already assigned it to himself.
Mamta :(
On 4/29/05, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lance J. Andersen wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I assumed when Mamta sent the email that it was the intent for
> > someone to take this over.
>
> > I ca
Lance J. Andersen wrote:
> Sorry, I assumed when Mamta sent the email that it was the intent for
> someone to take this over.
> I can reassign this back to Satheesh if you like.
Nothing to do with me. :-)
> I just assumed it was unassigned given the email was sent out. I did
> noticce when I
No problem.. You can keep it. :-)
I suspect Dan was making a general statement since we have seen more
active developers on the list recently. One should always assign a
defect they are actively working on, unassigns if they have stopped
working on it for any reason. Go Derby!
Satheesh
Lan
Sorry, I assumed when Mamta sent the email that it was the intent for
someone to take this over.
I can reassign this back to Satheesh if you like.
I just assumed it was unassigned given the email was sent out. I did
noticce when I assigned it that it showed Satheesh as the owner.
Just let
Lance J. Andersen wrote:
> I can take this if no one else wants it.
>
> Mamta Satoor wrote:
>>I think this is a very easy bug to fix. So, if someone is looking for
>>an opportunity to start with a simple bug, this will be a good one.
>>>Key: DERBY-242
>>>Assigned to: Satheesh Bandaram
