On Friday 26 March 2004 17.59, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> In the mean time I see Adrian has tagged this bug unreproducible.
Just to make sure nobody misunderstands: I propose downgrading as well, but I
haven't done that as (i) IANADD and (ii) I'm no regular bug-triage/qa
contributor either.
gree
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Er, if upstream agrees that there may be a data-lossage bug here, how
> many users do you think have to notice it before it should be considered
> RC?
Timo is just being really cautious.
> How sure are you that this bug doesn't affect other folders,
tags 225048 +unreproducible
thanks
On Thursday 25 March 2004 12.28, Pascal Hakim wrote:
[dovecot]
> Doesn't this bug only happen in mbox files? You could simply drop mbox
> support, it appears to be working fine with maildir (which is how I
> suspect how must people are using it (I certain
On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 16:54, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > => remove dovecot/0.99.10.4-3
> > > #225048 (data loss). I know this has been argued, but I still think it's
> > > not right to ship a package with a dataloss bug like this; your mileage
> >
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:54:08AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > => remove dovecot/0.99.10.4-3
> > > #225048 (data loss). I know this has been argued, but I still think it's
> > > not right to ship a package with a dataloss bug like this; your mi
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > => remove dovecot/0.99.10.4-3
> > #225048 (data loss). I know this has been argued, but I still think it's
> > not right to ship a package with a dataloss bug like this; your mileage may
> > vary.
>
> My mileage doesn't vary. Package also was not sh
6 matches
Mail list logo
