On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 03:12 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > And what exactly does this have to do with the technical committee?
>
> No idea. It looks like it all started with
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and since you're still
> wondering about RC/RG bugs, I'm answering these questions.
It would be a
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 03:12 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 17/03/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I thought all RC bugs were supposed to have severity "serious" or
> > higher. Has that been changed?
>
> RC != RG.
Ah, well then there is no need to berate me for failing to fix the bug
imm
Please respect list policies and don't duplicate mails.
On 17/03/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I thought all RC bugs were supposed to have severity "serious" or
> higher. Has that been changed?
RC != RG.
> > You don't read debian-devel-announce, do you?
>
> Of course I do. What I said wa
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 02:46 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 17/03/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Actually, I'm very good about uploading fixes for RC bugs promptly.
> > The bugs I think you are referring to were marked severity
> > "important". Perhaps the bugs were tagged incorrectly?
>
On 17/03/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Actually, I'm very good about uploading fixes for RC bugs promptly.
> The bugs I think you are referring to were marked severity
> "important". Perhaps the bugs were tagged incorrectly?
Severity != tag. And the severity is correct.
> I must have missed
5 matches
Mail list logo
