Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
forcemerge 735261 611153
Bug #735261 [kmail] kmail2 randomly marks read messages as unread
Bug #735261 [kmail] kmail2 randomly marks read messages as unread
Marked as found in versions kdepim/4:4.4.7-3.
Bug #611153 [kmail] KMail not setting unread
forcemerge 735261 611153
thanks
Hey,
unfortunatelly this problem still exists in 4.14.2. Inside 735261 there is
much more discussion about the read/unread behaviour.
Regads,
sandro
--
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:53:39 -0500 Randy Edwards redwa...@golgotha.net
wrote:
Package: kmail
Version:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 611067 +moreinfo
Bug #611067 [kmail] kmail: crash on attachment with preview
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
611067:
Your message dated Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:57:14 +0100
with message-id 5389964.jCbOUbqACP@tabin.local
and subject line Re: kmail: KDE bug 207779 (solved over there) affecting Kmail
HTML messages in Squeeze
has caused the Debian Bug report #614514,
regarding kmail: KDE bug 207779 (solved over there)
tag 611067 +moreinfo
thanks
Hey,
This bug is quite old. Is this behaviour still valid?
Regads,
sandro
--
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:05:45 +0100 Vladislav Kurz vladislav.k...@webstep.net
wrote:
Package: kmail
Version: 4:4.4.7-3
Severity: normal
Hello,
Kmail crashes in the following
tag 610471 +moreinfo
thanks
Hey,
This bug is quite old. Is this behaviour still valid?
Regads,
sandro
--
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:17 +0100 Landry MINOZA landry.min...@free.fr
wrote:
Package: kmail
Version: 4:4.4.7-2
Severity: normal
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
On
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 610471 +moreinfo
Bug #610471 [kmail] [kmail] Bad behavior of next unread message shortcut (+)
with a french laptop keybord
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
610471:
qbs_1.3.3+dfsg-3_kfreebsd-amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
qbs_1.3.3+dfsg-3.dsc
qbs_1.3.3+dfsg-3.debian.tar.xz
qbs_1.3.3+dfsg-3_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
libqbscore1_1.3.3+dfsg-3_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
libqbsqtprofilesetup1_1.3.3+dfsg-3_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
Version check failed:
Your upload included the source package qbs, version 1.3.3+dfsg-3,
however unstable already has version 1.3.3+dfsg-3.
Uploads to unstable must have a higher version than present in unstable.
===
Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Shai Berger wrote:
On Friday 16 January 2015 01:45:53 Michael Gilbert wrote:
However, the problem reported here is not a usability problem. If a mail
client losing record of which mails have been read and which haven't
isn't non-serious data loss, I can't
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Shai Berger wrote:
I am asking about serious vs. non-serious because those are the terms used
by reportbug (non-serious data loss is a reason to mark a bug grave).
Both grave and critical refer to actual data loss. Using the term
serious isn't particularly
On Monday 19 January 2015 00:54:41 Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Shai Berger wrote:
I am asking about serious vs. non-serious because those are the terms
used by reportbug (non-serious data loss is a reason to mark a bug
grave).
Both grave and critical refer to
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Shai Berger wrote:
Both grave and critical refer to actual data loss. Using the term
serious isn't particularly useful since that falls outside those two
categories anyway.
Again, you're being tautological, repeating your terms rather than defining
them.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Shai Berger s...@platonix.com wrote:
So, the bits marking messages as read or unread are not data? What,
pray tell, are they?
Easily recreatable bit flags.
So data isn't lost if it is easily recreatable? Really?
No.
By that argument, there really
On Sunday 18 January 2015 23:51:01 Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Shai Berger s...@platonix.com wrote:
Those easily recreatable bits represent a significant part of my mail
workflow. Almost any data can be recreated by repeating the work that
created it. Your claims
On Sunday 18 January 2015 21:46:52 Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Shai Berger wrote:
On Friday 16 January 2015 01:45:53 Michael Gilbert wrote:
However, the problem reported here is not a usability problem. If a
mail client losing record of which mails have been
16 matches
Mail list logo
