On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 07:35:25PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > notfound 457073 3.0.28-2 > found 457073 3.0.24-6etch9 > thanks
> Hence marking this bug as present in Etch but not in current > testing. That should be enough. Currently (and including after your control@ request), the bug is marked as "from other branch" for testing/unstable because 3.0.24-6etch9 is not an ancestor of the current 3.0.28 package. Bugs that were present in 3.0.24-6 should generally be marked as such, so that we have a clear indication of where they were fixed on each of the stable and unstable branches. In this case I hadn't marked it as present in 3.0.24-6 yet, because I hadn't determined if that was true, as opposed to having been introduced in a security update or so. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
