On Apr 9, 5:04 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 14:48 -0500, Jeremy Dunck
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 14:48 -0500, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> ...
>>> I'm aware of ticket #7539, but would prefer to keep the scope
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 14:48 -0500, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> Malcolm, Jacob pointed me at you, since the code in question was a
> commit around QSRF-time.
>
> I'm aware of ticket #7539, but would prefer to keep the scope narrower
> and ask the hopefully-useful question-- is #9308 a bug? If so, I'd
On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>
> Malcolm, Jacob pointed me at you, since the code in question was a
> commit around QSRF-time.
>
> I'm aware of ticket #7539, but would prefer to keep the scope narrower
> and ask the hopefully-useful question-- is #9308 a bug? If so, I'd
>
Malcolm, Jacob pointed me at you, since the code in question was a
commit around QSRF-time.
I'm aware of ticket #7539, but would prefer to keep the scope narrower
and ask the hopefully-useful question-- is #9308 a bug? If so, I'd
like to close it for 1.1.
In summary, #9308 describes a