On Jul 14, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Laser, Mary wrote:
-Original Message-
On Jul 14, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Laser, Mary wrote:
Yes, there are a handful of open bugs that will not get
fixed for 1.1.
(At least 3 I know of, are license identification issues
that should
be addressed in 1.2.)
> -Original Message-
>
>
> On Jul 14, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Laser, Mary wrote:
>
> > Yes, there are a handful of open bugs that will not get
> fixed for 1.1.
> > (At least 3 I know of, are license identification issues
> that should
> > be addressed in 1.2.) As Bob suggests, we sho
On Jul 14, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Laser, Mary wrote:
Yes, there are a handful of open bugs that will not get fixed for
1.1. (At least 3 I know of, are license identification issues that
should be addressed in 1.2.) As Bob suggests, we should add these
to the Known Issues section of the relea
> -Original Message-
> From: fossology-boun...@fossology.org
> [mailto:fossology-boun...@fossology.org] On Behalf Of Gobeille, Robert
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:24 PM
> To: Donohoe, Mark
> Cc: fossology@fossology.org
> Subject: Re: [FOSSology] Scheduler Status
So you are proposing that we add notes about all outstanding bugs
targeted for 1.1 to the release notes?
Sounds reasonable to me. There aren't very many. I think it would be
good to get these down to a one liner + url to the bug.
Bob
On Jul 14, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Donohoe, Mark wrote:
Bo
5 matches
Mail list logo
