On 2012/09/25 14:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 24/09/2012 22:29, Jerry wrote:
Is there any specific reason that this PR: 161548 is still marked as
open?
o 2011/10/13 bin/161548 [patch] getent(1) inconsistent treatment of IPv6 host
data
It simply hasn't attracted the attention of anyone
On 26/09/2012 07:27, Kevin Lo wrote:
On 2012/09/25 14:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 24/09/2012 22:29, Jerry wrote:
Is there any specific reason that this PR: 161548 is still marked as
open?
o 2011/10/13 bin/161548 [patch] getent(1) inconsistent treatment of
IPv6 host data
It simply hasn't
On 2012/09/26 16:44, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 26/09/2012 07:27, Kevin Lo wrote:
On 2012/09/25 14:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 24/09/2012 22:29, Jerry wrote:
Is there any specific reason that this PR: 161548 is still marked as
open?
o 2011/10/13 bin/161548 [patch] getent(1) inconsistent
On 24/09/2012 22:29, Jerry wrote:
Is there any specific reason that this PR: 161548 is still marked as
open?
o 2011/10/13 bin/161548 [patch] getent(1) inconsistent treatment of IPv6 host
data
It simply hasn't attracted the attention of anyone with a src commit
bit. Yet.
Cheers
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:03:57 +0100
Matthew Seaman articulated:
On 24/09/2012 22:29, Jerry wrote:
Is there any specific reason that this PR: 161548 is still marked as
open?
o 2011/10/13 bin/161548 [patch] getent(1) inconsistent treatment of
IPv6 host data
It simply hasn't attracted
Is there any specific reason that this PR: 161548 is still marked as
open?
o 2011/10/13 bin/161548 [patch] getent(1) inconsistent treatment of IPv6 host
data
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header
