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 the
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?
about RC/RG bugs, I'm answering these questions.
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgp8ZZbMd4K90.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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
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 shame
5 matches
Mail list logo