On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 18:21 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Maybe it should have been urgency=low as it is a new upstream version, > though normally a simple RC bug fix warrants an urgency=high... OK, you are an AM, I have to believe you; I though urgency=high is for RC bugfixes those affect testing (this one isn't).
> This only confirms that the bug is not solved for Martin... Well, yes. Upstream should be fail-safe on empty timeout value. > Though before it's documented I wouldn't close this bug... Agree again; please Luciano document this behavior and/or ask upstream to be fail-safe on empty timeout values. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
