Looking at this bug report, I see: 1. Bug #314411 filed in 2005 on xine-ui. 2. Bug closed in 2007 with basically "can't reproduce it" in the changelog. 3. Bug submitter, amazingly still around, points out that's nonsense; suggests trying to reproduce the bug and/or using the unreproducible flag, and suggests reassigning to libaa IF (AND ONLY IF) it somehow is responsible for the problem. 4. Bug is immediately attempted to be reassigned to libaa, with no rationalle, and with the reassign message sent to the wrong address. 5. New control message is sent to the right address to reassign to libaa, again with no rarionalle, and with the control message formatted in a way that ensures that libaa's maintainer will get NO mail about it, and this take a maximum amount of time to notice it. 6. Bug is closed by another upload of xine-ui, again the maintainer doesn't realize that "can't reproduce bug" is not acceptable changelog fodder, this is particularly amazing since he just reassigned the bug. 7. Bug is reopened by its submitter, who again points out this is crackful.
Someone needs to learn how to use the BTS. (See #2, #4, #5, #6). I am reassigning this bug back to xine-ui. Please don't silently reassign it to libaa, and don't assign it back to libaa unless you have some actual evidence that there is a problem in aalib that's causing the crash. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
