>-----Original Message----- >From: Weddington, Eric >Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 7:13 PM >To: Boyapati, Anitha; Bill Perry; Joerg Wunsch; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org >Subject: RE: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #30363] _delay_xx() functions in ><util/delay.h>are broken > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org >> [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org] On >> Behalf Of Anitha Boyapati >> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 11:43 PM >> To: Boyapati, Anitha; Bill Perry; Joerg Wunsch; avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org >> Subject: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #30363] _delay_xx() functions in >> <util/delay.h>are broken >> >> Update of bug #30363 (project avr-libc): >> >> Status: In Progress => Fixed >> Discussion Lock: Any => Locked >> > >Hi Anitha, > >I think that we would prefer that you not lock the discussion on a bug >unless the conversation in the bug comments have turned into some sort of >flame war. Even if the bug is fixed, a user may come back and re-open the >bug and they will need to make a comment.
Err..I thought all fixed and closed bugs can have locked discussions. No? I mean if a bug is re-opened can not the discussed be unlocked? Actually I did not mean to lock it (changed it unintentionally and did not revert it back assuming it is ok) but only change the status to fixed. Anitha _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
