LN> Now, a mistake was made in with nurd{5,6}. It's easy to fix it, just
LN> reopen all the bugs, and mark them as notfound in the version used in
LN> their -close message. It would have been a lot more helpful and less
LN> demotivating to contact the one who closed the bugs instead of mailing
LN>
On 20/04/08 at 03:55 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 20 April 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I assume that in _all_ [1] cases an attempt is made to contact the
> > maintainers first?
> >
> > I also assume that this is only done after a package is also no longer in
> > stable or, as long as it is su
On Sunday 20 April 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> I assume that in _all_ [1] cases an attempt is made to contact the
> maintainers first?
>
> I also assume that this is only done after a package is also no longer in
> stable or, as long as it is supported, in oldstable?
Maybe in general it would be good
Barry deFreese wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The newest fad in Mass bug closings is:
>> All bugs against package "nurd5" have been automatically closed without
>> further review, as "nurd5" has been removed from Debian.
>
> Where possible they are being reviewed. Of course it's possible tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The newest fad in Mass bug closings is:
All bugs against package "nurd5" have been automatically closed without
further review,
as "nurd5" has been removed from Debian.
OK, fair enough, until one checks deeper and finds:
"nurd5" has been removed
On 2008-04-19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The newest fad in Mass bug closings is:
> All bugs against package "nurd5" have been automatically closed without
> further review,
> as "nurd5" has been removed from Debian.
>
> OK, fair enough, until one checks deeper and
The newest fad in Mass bug closings is:
All bugs against package "nurd5" have been automatically closed without
further review,
as "nurd5" has been removed from Debian.
OK, fair enough, until one checks deeper and finds:
"nurd5" has been removed from Debian because:
7 matches
Mail list logo
