Argh, human error, please ignore that laste one if you like -- that was
from the draft folder, or rather I was using the 'queue' folder like it
was a draft folder again, and hit the wrong Sylpheed 'Send' button.
Not that there was anything inflamatory there, but it's been a busy
week, so I was
Pending already. Maybe this reply is better late than never, though
it's relevant to the earlier 'freeguide' bug log, particularly
regarding homogenized upstream dates. Sometimes one bug is really
several.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:22:44 +0100
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be
Hi,
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, A. Costa wrote:
To be clear: this bug #366555 is assigned to dpkg-dev and dpkg-dev
doesn't control the timestamp of generated documentation. If you want
the generated documentation to have a timestamp that matches the
source, you should just write a tool that
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, A. Costa wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, it therefore follows I'd
be favoring time wasting over-engineering --- provided of course, there
were only two possible ways of dealing with the bug,
(1. the wrong way, or 2. no fix at all).
But as was
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:11:35 +0100
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, A. Costa wrote:
The long bug log clearly says that there's no point to try to
conserve timestamps for generated documentation. And I agree with
that.
Time permitting, would you kindly
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:11:22 +0100
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The long bug log clearly says that there's no point to try to conserve
timestamps for generated documentation. And I agree with that.
Time permitting, would you kindly tell me where it says that? I reread
the whole
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, A. Costa wrote:
The long bug log clearly says that there's no point to try to conserve
timestamps for generated documentation. And I agree with that.
Time permitting, would you kindly tell me where it says that? I reread
the whole BTS log for #366555 yesterday, but
7 matches
Mail list logo
