[SRM] lifelines 3.0.50-2etch1 uploaded (r1) (was: Re: Permission to update lifelines in the next stable point release (4.0r1))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/21/2007 05:05 AM, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: > Thanks Julien and Martin, sorry for the delay, the > documentation bug take more time than I was expecting. :-) > Anyway, I just uploaded 3.0.50-3, fixing three bugs: > > * Chan

Re: Permission to update lifelines in the next stable point release (4.0r1)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/20/2007 03:39 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > On Mon May 07, 2007 at 15:46:52 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: >> At 1178512994 time_t, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: >>> I would like to fix #405500 in the next point release, >>> it is a

Re: Permission to update lifelines in the next stable point release (4.0r1)

Hi, On Mon May 07, 2007 at 15:46:52 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > At 1178512994 time_t, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: > > I would like to fix #405500 in the next point release, > > it is a missing Conflicts, so is it possible to include it? > > Ok. > > > What is the recommende

Re: Permission to update lifelines in the next stable point release (4.0r1)

At 1178512994 time_t, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: > I would like to fix #405500 in the next point release, > it is a missing Conflicts, so is it possible to include it? Ok. > What is the recommended procedure? Can I go ahead and > upload it to etch-proposed-updates? Or s

Permission to update lifelines in the next stable point release (4.0r1)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Stable Release Team! :-) I would like to fix #405500 in the next point release, it is a missing Conflicts, so is it possible to include it? What is the recommended procedure? Can I go ahead and upload it to etch-proposed-updates?