severity 244169 critical merge 348185 244169 thanks On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 03:21:18PM +0100, José Luis Tallón wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> progsreiserfs (0.3.0.5-1) unstable; urgency=low > >> . > >> * Updated to newer upstream version ... (Closes: #231304) > >> - Will this work? (Closes: #244169) > >You mean you don't *know* if the new version still eats partitions? Could > >you please not close release-critical bugs (in particular, data-loss bugs) > >if it's not confirmed that the bugs are fixed? > I was re-submitting an RC bug to avoid it migrating to testing... > If it's not via user testing, how can we ensure that it does work?? Er... by actually *finding* the bug and fixing it? Or if you have a reproducible test case, sure, testing the new upstream version to see if it passes the test case is also appropriate. But presuming the bug is closed without any basis in fact isn't. > I have no means to test it right now, and a new upstream release should > be better in that respect, right? Hahaha no. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
