Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNS

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSU

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUB

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBS

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSC

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCR

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCRI

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCRIB

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again...closing without explanation is *not* cleanup. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, e

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "uns

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsu

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsub

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 thanks From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#closing : The message body needs to contain an explanation of how the bug was fixed. Thank you for including that if you wish to close the bug again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscr

Bug#386363: Reopen

reopen 386363 severity 386363 minor retitle 386363 important priority for non-necessary tool thanks The wontfix tag should be reserved for open bugs to indicate that they will never be closed, so you shouldn't close a bug in addition to tagging it wontfix. Debian Policy describes priority imp