| 1 |
Michael, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
You are very welcome, it was a pleasure to upgrade such a critical |
| 4 |
piece of Gentoo, even though it required time I could have spent outside |
| 5 |
in the Florida sun. As for your question about adding in the duplicate |
| 6 |
status. 'Duplicate' isn't a status, its a resolution state. I point you |
| 7 |
to http://bugs.gentoo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status |
| 8 |
for a better explanation. So in a more abstract sense, a Duplicate bug |
| 9 |
has been 'resolved,' as someone has determined that it is a duplicate |
| 10 |
bug and pointed the bug to its appropriate original filing. With that |
| 11 |
said, I put this issue to rest. ;) Yes, it's nitpicky, but I won't |
| 12 |
impart any bodily harm on you. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-Jeffrey |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:42 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 18 |
> (fearing the jeff wrath) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> can we get the dup status added back in though? i know, i know, we're being |
| 21 |
> nitpicky, and not too many folks have stood up and applauded this effort like |
| 22 |
> they should have (ahem). Just...unsettling to see bugs marked as resolved - |
| 23 |
> make it sound like i did something rather than find that the same problem had |
| 24 |
> been reported a few times :) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives