On 21.12.2016 23:52, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:34:16PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
Side-note: the new package request allows either full url or just BZ ticket
number. Perhaps the unretirement form could be made to also accept both
inputs.
Yes, a fix is already queued for the
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:34:16PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Side-note: the new package request allows either full url or just BZ ticket
> number. Perhaps the unretirement form could be made to also accept both
> inputs.
Yes, a fix is already queued for the next release of the admin tool that
On 21.12.2016 23:28, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
This is the kind of thing that should probably be in an infrastructure
ticket instead of the mailing list, but I happened to see your message.
As far as I can tell, you're correct in
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> This is the kind of thing that should probably be in an infrastructure
> ticket instead of the mailing list, but I happened to see your message.
> As far as I can tell, you're correct in your assessment and I'd
> certainly
> "SM" == Sandro Mani writes:
SM> Hi I filed the request to unretire eigen2, but I accidentally
SM> specified only the rhbz ticket number instead of the full URL so it
SM> got denied with "Invalid review BZ". I now tried filing a new
SM> unretirement request with the
Hi
I filed the request to unretire eigen2, but I accidentally specified
only the rhbz ticket number instead of the full URL so it got denied
with "Invalid review BZ". I now tried filing a new unretirement request
with the full ticket url, but now I'm getting
Could not save the request for