On Sat, Nov 01, 2025 at 09:08:56AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > From: Santiago Vila <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2025 09:06:47 +0100 > > > Ok, can you confirm that every similar bug should also be considered > > as a bug in ruby-prawn? (I filed several of them yesterday and would > > like to reassign them if that's the right way to proceed). > > Sorry, I was sleeping -- I intended to refile them after I made sure the > first one worked (I'm not facile with our bug tracker and didn't want to > break a *bunch* of bugs). Thanks for taking care of this, I'll monitor > and might manage an NMU if the Ruby team is busy over the next week or so.
On the contrary, sorry for asking a question which was not actually needed. All the four bugs had identical subjects, so it was obvious that they were the "same". Regarding the BTS: I already broke it myself :-) Apparently, the first bug in a forcemerge determines the affects of all the others being forcemerged, so most affects were cleared, but it was just a matter of readding them. (This is why I sometimes do reassign + affects but skip the forcemerge before it becomes messy). Thanks a lot.
