On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 09:19:52AM +0200, Andreas Olsson wrote: > On Tuesday 28 April 2009 23:37:02 Brian Murray wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Andreas Olsson wrote: > > > > *) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/296952 > > > I would have set the importance of this bug to Medium. > > > > This looks great to me, thanks for tracking down the bug and providing a > > fix. This seems like it would be relatively easy to create a package > > for a SRU - do you think it would be worthwhile for Hardy? > Well, I guess I haven't really goten the feel yet for what qualifies to being > a > SRU. But if you think it might I guess it never hurts to write up a SRU > proposal. I'll take care of that later today or tomorrow. > > > > > *) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/325393 > > > I would set the importance of this bug to Low. > > > (Yes, now I do know how to register a new project in Launchpad.) > > > > Forwarding bug reports upstream is a great service, thanks for doing > > this! I agree with the importance you've chosen too. The bug was > > missing a Debian bug watch which I added after finding the right > > Debian bug. It might be worth watching this, since it was fixed > > upstream recently, to ensure that it gets pulled in for Karmic. > Actually there a quite a few things in the ntop package I'd like to work on. > Figured I would contact the Debian Maintainer and see if I an get the job > done > in -unstable. Should be able to get that done in plenty of time for the > result > to get pulled into Karmic. > > > > *) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/330588 > > > I would set the importance of this bug to Low, or possibly to Wishlist. > > > Actually I would probably ask for a second opinion in #ubuntu-bugs. > > > > Thanks for taking the time to communicate with the reporter and find out > > what exactly there concern/bug was. Its a rather interesting question > > but I'm not certain this belongs filed about netkit-tftp. The best way > > of resolving the issue might be having the package description for > > tftp-hpa and tftp updated to be more clear. If it were to happen it > > should happen upstream with Debian. > Yes, this should probably be resolved with "better" description fields. I'll > see what I can do to move this issue forward. > > > > *) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/349072 > > > I would actually have given this bug the Medium importance. While it > > > might be a corner case I do believe it's a very legitimate case in a > > > backup program. > > > > Again this is great work, thanks for preparing the patch and getting the > > bug fix in Jaunty! It looks like you might have typo'ed the changelog > > entry to get the bug report auto-closed. It needs to be LP: #349072 - > > you seem to be missing the ":". I also agree with an importance of > > Medium for this bug report. > Yes, noticed that missing ":", afterwards. Is that something which should be > fixed next time the rdiff-backup package is updated? If so, might it be a > good > idea to create a bug report about it, as a reminder?
No, the latest changelog entry is read only one time to look for bugs to close. -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
