On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 15:12 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 21:21 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 02:44:31PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 14:13 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Given the number of bugs involved, perhap
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 21:21 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 02:44:31PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 14:13 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
> > > Given the number of bugs involved, perhaps we
> > > need to teach debbugs that "linux-2.6" should be consid
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 02:44:31PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 14:13 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 01:39:20PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Since Linux 3.x is a continuation of the 2.6.x series and not a major
> > > change, there was no need to c
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 14:13 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 01:39:20PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Since Linux 3.x is a continuation of the 2.6.x series and not a major
> > change, there was no need to create a new source package for it.
> > However, we should now rename th
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 01:39:20PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Since Linux 3.x is a continuation of the 2.6.x series and not a major
> change, there was no need to create a new source package for it.
> However, we should now rename the source package to 'linux'.
>
> Currently, most of our bugs a
Since Linux 3.x is a continuation of the 2.6.x series and not a major
change, there was no need to create a new source package for it.
However, we should now rename the source package to 'linux'.
Currently, most of our bugs are assigned to 'linux-2.6' or
'src:linux-2.6' so that version-tracking wo
6 matches
Mail list logo
