>Ok then, [perl #16934] is unvalid, it should be removed from rt unless
>we want its syntax as an alternative to the correct way.
The removal process looks like:
set patch status to "Rejected" (and make sure to send an email
with a reason)
Change ticket state to resolved.
-R
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:39 PM +0200 9/6/02, Josef Hook wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >> At 1:40 PM +0100 9/5/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >> >I believe applying the patch is the right thing, because it's progress
> >> >on where we are, but I th
At 1:39 PM +0200 9/6/02, Josef Hook wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> At 1:40 PM +0100 9/5/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>> >I believe applying the patch is the right thing, because it's progress
>> >on where we are, but I think (not fully formed yet) that we would benefit
>> >f
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:40 PM +0100 9/5/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >I believe applying the patch is the right thing, because it's progress
> >on where we are, but I think (not fully formed yet) that we would benefit
> >from finer granularity on what can get modified
>
>
