On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Jeff wrote:
> Ewps. It was recently pointed out to me that I accidentally reversed
> #17000. The problem has been fixed, I believe. Sorry, Andy.
That's ok, it's partly my fault too. I had posted the patch hoping for
comments, but grew impatient. I knew it was a decent band-
Jeff wrote:
>
> And some more marked as committed that got missed...
> Patch #17000 -
Ewps. It was recently pointed out to me that I accidentally reversed
#17000. The problem has been fixed, I believe. Sorry, Andy.
--
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve Fink wrote:
>
> I have applied at least one other not on your list (#17008). Should I
> be marking things as applied? I didn't think I had the permissions to
> do that, so I've just been trying to make sure I post a "Thanks,
> applied" so it gets into RT's reply set. Can I do more than that
I have applied at least one other not on your list (#17008). Should I
be marking things as applied? I didn't think I had the permissions to
do that, so I've just been trying to make sure I post a "Thanks,
applied" so it gets into RT's reply set. Can I do more than that?
And a couple others:
#16962 -- (docs) applied
#16938 -- (imcc) applied
/s
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Jeff wrote:
> And some more marked as committed that got missed...
>
> Most of the time I'm looking at http://www.parrotcode.org/openpatches/
> in order to find out what needs to be committed. I'm so
And some more marked as committed that got missed...
Most of the time I'm looking at http://www.parrotcode.org/openpatches/
in order to find out what needs to be committed. I'm so far just marking
patches as 'Applied', not closing out the RT report.
(NOte: I'm not claiming that I committed all o
