On Mon, 01 Apr 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
> > Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
> > error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
> >
> > The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time
On Mon, 01 Apr 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
> > Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
> > error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
> >
> > The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little tim
On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
>
> Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
> error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
>
> The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
> reason to make users of another arch
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
reason to make users of another architecture suffer because of this.
--
To UNSUB
On 01-Apr-2002 Will Newton wrote:
>
> Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
> error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
>
> The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
> reason to make users of another arc
Is it acceptable to downgrade a serious bug to important if it is a build
error on an arch that has never built correctly in the past?
The problem is being worked on, it's just taking a little time, and I see no
reason to make users of another architecture suffer because of this.
--
To UNSU
6 matches
Mail list logo