Hi all,
is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with
RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too.
virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers)
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64
you mix stable unstable - your problem
Cheers Justin
signature.asc
On 9/11/10 11:51 AM, justin wrote:
is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with
RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too.
virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers)
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64
you mix stable unstable - your
On 09/11/2010 09:51 PM, justin wrote:
Hi all,
is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with
RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too.
virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers)
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64
you mix stable unstable
On Saturday 11 of September 2010 20:51:56 justin wrote:
Hi all,
is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with
RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it
too.
virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers)
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=amd64
you
On Saturday, September 11, 2010 15:04:45 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:51:56 +0200 justin wrote:
is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with
RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use
it too.
virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35
Hey all,
just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for
removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis
that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get
closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reversed for whatever reason,
and the
Ryan Hill kirjoitti:
Hey all,
just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for
removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis
that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get
closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reversed for
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:28:44 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeh the PMASKED KEYWORD is for packages waiting removal.
Is there some place people are supposed to find out about this stuff?
I've seen two random Bugzilla keywords mentioned in here in the past
week or so as if they were
Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:28:44 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeh the PMASKED KEYWORD is for packages waiting removal.
Is there some place people are supposed to find out about this stuff?
I've seen two random Bugzilla keywords mentioned in here in the
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:02:28 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. When you click the Keywords link it takes you to a description
page: https://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi
Sure, I'm aware of that. But where do I hear about the addition of new
ones? Am I supposed to randomly
Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:02:28 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. When you click the Keywords link it takes you to a description
page: https://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi
Sure, I'm aware of that. But where do I hear about the addition of new
On P, 2007-07-01 at 12:22 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
Hey all,
just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for
removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis
that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get
closed WONTFIX or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
Well, not blocker g, but ...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73181
This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the
dev implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug
before actually
13 matches
Mail list logo
