On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Moving this from IRC to the list:
> Would it be worth considering a "testing" pseudopackage
> that people could file removal requests against?
> no problem as far as I'm concerned, although I occasionally
>
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 09:33:57AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Maybe we should use the "confirmed" tag on RC bugs as a cue that the
> > > package definitely needs removing? (Or perhaps a "sarge-c
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Maybe we should use the "confirmed" tag on RC bugs as a cue that the
> > package definitely needs removing? (Or perhaps a "sarge-confirmed" tag
> > until version-tracking is finished)
[snip]
> Every pa
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Maybe we should use the "confirmed" tag on RC bugs as a cue that the
> package definitely needs removing? (Or perhaps a "sarge-confirmed" tag
> until version-tracking is finished)
Eh, I use the 'confirmed' tag for bugs (RC or not) th
Yoho,
Moving this from IRC to the list:
Would it be worth considering a "testing" pseudopackage
that people could file removal requests against?
no problem as far as I'm concerned, although I occasionally
browse the ftp.debian.org pseudopackage. People sometimes file
5 matches
Mail list logo