On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:13:18 +0200, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> > There is another thing that could be cleaned up in Bugzilla: moving
> > all 1.3.x bugs that are in RESOLVED state to the CLOSED state and
> > adding a comment saying that the fix is part of the off
Hi Raphael,
Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> There is another thing that could be cleaned up in Bugzilla: moving
> all 1.3.x bugs that are in RESOLVED state to the CLOSED state and
> adding a comment saying that the fix is part of the official release
> 2.0.0 (or 2.0.1 soon).
Personally I don't see the ne
There is another thing that could be cleaned up in Bugzilla: moving
all 1.3.x bugs that are in RESOLVED state to the CLOSED state and
adding a comment saying that the fix is part of the official release
2.0.0 (or 2.0.1 soon). This helps the users who are searching for
bugs by telling them in which
Hi,
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we should stick to having 2.0.1, 2.0.2 etc. It's often
> important to know if the user reporting a bug is using a particular
> release in which the bug is supposed to have been fixed.
Yes, I think we should continue to have the fine
Hi,
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 22:28, David Neary wrote:
> Up until earlier today there were over 30 versions of the GIMP to
> choose from in Bugzilla. This has been reduced to 4 - 1.0.x, 1.2.x,
> 1.3.x, 2.0.0 and Current CVS. I question whether we'll need
> 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc at all, and personally I'm
Hi all,
Up until earlier today there were over 30 versions of the GIMP to
choose from in Bugzilla. This has been reduced to 4 - 1.0.x, 1.2.x,
1.3.x, 2.0.0 and Current CVS. I question whether we'll need
2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc at all, and personally I'm happy having just
".x" for the major branches, but
