Hello,
On Sat 17 Dec 2022 at 04:43PM +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Control: reopen -1
>
> Hi!
>
> Sorry, probably my fault! As I tend to use «Fixes:» git pseudo-fields
> for things that fix part of a bug, but are not intended yet to close it,
> for which I use «Closes:».
>
> And for some reason I
On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 08:35:02 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (That said, and this is only personal preference and I don't feel that
> strongly about it, I usually err on the side of creating lots of bugs so
> that there can be roughly one bug per patch. It can make it a bit harder
> to track
Guillem Jover writes:
> Sorry, probably my fault! As I tend to use «Fixes:» git pseudo-fields
> for things that fix part of a bug, but are not intended yet to close it,
> for which I use «Closes:».
Ack, sorry, this was my fault. I optimistically added a bug closer when I
started merging
Control: reopen -1
Hi!
Sorry, probably my fault! As I tend to use «Fixes:» git pseudo-fields
for things that fix part of a bug, but are not intended yet to close it,
for which I use «Closes:».
And for some reason I think I also got the impression, even though
the stanza changes had been
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #1020248 {Done: Sean Whitton } [debian-policy]
debian-policy: Clarifying nomenclature for control file names
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared, and you may need to re-add them.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 01:25:10PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Thanks Holger for pointing this out. I'll cut a release today or
> tomorrow.
\o/ & thank you!
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP:
6 matches
Mail list logo
