Following the bugzilla upgrade, looks like email is now setting a field
procmail can filter on. so, ah, thanks! 'cause i know this bugzilla
upgrade was all secretly to satisfy me ;)
~mcummings, advocate of saving jforman from further torment without a
good cause, like sheer fun or something
--
g
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 02:37 +0900, Chris White wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 December 2005 20:00, Michael Cummings wrote:
>
> er.. why not just do an advanced query for all bugs assigned / cc'ed to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] How that doesn't accomplish the same thing...
>
Because i'm talking about filteri
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:37:54AM +0900, Chris White wrote:
> > er.. why not just do an advanced query for all bugs assigned / cc'ed to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] How that doesn't accomplish the same thing...
>
> didnt know e-mail clients were integrated wi
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 02:37 +0900, Chris White wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 December 2005 20:00, Michael Cummings wrote:
>
> er.. why not just do an advanced query for all bugs assigned / cc'ed to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] How that doesn't accomplish the same thing...
Because that does nothing for filter
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:37:54AM +0900, Chris White wrote:
> er.. why not just do an advanced query for all bugs assigned / cc'ed to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] How that doesn't accomplish the same thing...
didnt know e-mail clients were integrated with bugzilla
oh, they're not, so it's still hard to
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 20:00, Michael Cummings wrote:
er.. why not just do an advanced query for all bugs assigned / cc'ed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] How that doesn't accomplish the same thing...
> Just a thought as i try to recall where i left that can of coffee,
> ~mcummings
Chris White
p
Lance Albertson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>>this has come up before on those lists, i just dont remember the
>>outcome :P
>
> Don't forget about jforman!
The outcome was that Bugzilla Product (here, "Gentoo Security")
could/should/would be added as a Bugzilla mail header so that proper
fi
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 13:55 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this really should have been sent to the security mailing list and
> cc-ed the security team
>
> this has come up before on those lists, i just dont remember the
> outcome :P
See, this is my (*cough*lazy*cough*) ignorance shining bright a
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 06:00:21AM -0500, Michael Cummings wrote:
>
>>Gee, wouldn't it be nice for us lazy folks if the word [Security] (in
>>some common fashion) were included in the summary line of security
>>related bugs?
>
>
> this really should have been sent to the
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 06:00:21AM -0500, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Gee, wouldn't it be nice for us lazy folks if the word [Security] (in
> some common fashion) were included in the summary line of security
> related bugs?
this really should have been sent to the security mailing list and
cc-ed th
Gee, wouldn't it be nice for us lazy folks if the word [Security] (in
some common fashion) were included in the summary line of security
related bugs? i should seriously hope this doesn't warrant a glep, more
of a "anyone else think it'd be worth asking the security folks about"
question. (reason b
11 matches
Mail list logo
