Title: Goodbye!
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:26:06PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:46:10AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
> > testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
> >
> > The question is, since this is also true of 2.4.24-1 (I
> > just c
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:46:10AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
> testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
>
> The question is, since this is also true of 2.4.24-1 (I
> just checked then) would it be bad to tag this bug with
> 'sarge' as well as 'si
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:15:03PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Paul Hampson wrote:
>
> > Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
> > testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
> >
> > The question is, since this is also true of 2.4.24-1 (I
> > just checked then) wo
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Paul Hampson wrote:
> Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
> testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
>
> The question is, since this is also true of 2.4.24-1 (I
> just checked then) would it be bad to tag this bug with
> 'sarge' as well as 'sid'?
It would of cou
Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
The question is, since this is also true of 2.4.24-1 (I
just checked then) would it be bad to tag this bug with
'sarge' as well as 'sid'?
Am I right in thinking that a bug tagged 'sarge' is ignored
by the te
6 matches
Mail list logo
