On RC/RG bugs…

2008-03-16 Thread Cyril Brulebois
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

Re: On RC/RG bugs…

2008-03-16 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
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?

Re: On RC/RG bugs…

2008-03-16 Thread Cyril Brulebois
about RC/RG bugs, I'm answering these questions. -- Cyril Brulebois pgp8ZZbMd4K90.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: On RC/RG bugs…

2008-03-16 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
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

Re: On RC/RG bugs…

2008-03-16 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
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