On 9/13/06, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
> But in this case, almost all of them are for 3.2.x, which hasn't had a
> maintainer in over five years :). IMHO, you could mark them all as WONTFIX.
> I'm happy enough that Sriram is actually testing against 3.3.2.
Anyone looking at open bugs is a good thing and I welcome Sriram's
contribution. My concern was marking stuff as INVALID that isn't. I
have no issue with marking old bugs in unsupported versions as WONTFIX.
Mark. I've had a look at some of some bugs that you've marked as
either REOPENED or NEEDINFO. I agree with your assessment. I'd planned
to test a few bug reports today, and I'll definitely look into these
as well.
Thanks for the advice on opting for WONTFIX instead of INVALID.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
