У сб, 2010-02-06 у 13:12 +, Neil Puttock пише:
> Now I've looked at this issue in a bit more detail, I think I was a
> bit hasty in marking it as a duplicate. I'll change it back and
> explain why on the tracker.
Thank You.
I hardly could decide/agree that they are duplicates.
>
> Cheers,
>
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 01:12:07PM +, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 6 February 2010 09:19, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote:
>
> > So, "just for tracking": since both issues marked as "Enhancement", i
> > believe it's quite safe to leave 999 unverified until 305 be closed.
>
> I might be wrong, but I thin
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 11:19:11AM +0200, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote:
> У ср, 2010-02-03 у 13:59 +0200, Dmytro O. Redchuk пише:
> > A question: issue 999 has been merged into 305 --- does this mean that
> > fixing 305 will automatically fix 999?
>
> So, "just for tracking": since both issues marked
On 6 February 2010 09:19, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote:
> So, "just for tracking": since both issues marked as "Enhancement", i
> believe it's quite safe to leave 999 unverified until 305 be closed.
I might be wrong, but I think you're supposed to mark duplicates as
verified if you agree they're dupl
У ср, 2010-02-03 у 13:59 +0200, Dmytro O. Redchuk пише:
> Hi.
>
> A question: issue 999 has been merged into 305 --- does this mean that
> fixing 305 will automatically fix 999?
>
> I believe, 999 should be marked as "Verified" only if a solution for
> 305 fixes 999 too, that's why i'm asking
Hi.
A question: issue 999 has been merged into 305 --- does this mean that
fixing 305 will automatically fix 999?
I believe, 999 should be marked as "Verified" only if a solution for
305 fixes 999 too, that's why i'm asking.
Thanks!
___
http://code.google.com/p/lilyp
