Myriam Schweingruber wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Richard llom wrote: >> Myriam Schweingruber wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Richard llom wrote: >>>> [...] >> Ok, how about the reproducible keyword? > > We don't use that, instead the status is set to confirmed, as only > reproducible bugs are getting that status. > Ah, ok.
>> And regarding the relation of the bugs: >> I guess a "See also" link cannot harm, also considering the few manpower >> here ... :-( (this should ease things). > > As I said, that is not up to me to set that, let the maintainers do > this. Again, you did NOT send this to the correct mailing list, Cc:ing > them. > This was (IMHO) more a question about the bug handling itself, rather about the matter of the bug. So I thought the testing ML would be appropriate? > In general: the kde-testing mailing list is not for bug reports to the > individual projects, ... > These mails weren't bug reports nor were they meant as bug reports (I know you didn't say so, I just wanted to clarify this. Also regarding the follow- ups on this thread). I just wanted to get some deeper insight, like if there are (specific) reasons, maybe to get in contact with the dev, etc. > developers are automatically assigned the bugs correctly. You can > always send an additional mail to the relevant developer list, ... > You did so with your first reply, so I think this is OK now. Lets see if someone responds. Regards richard _______________________________________________ Kde-testing mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-testing
