On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 04:50:35PM BST, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> To nitpick a bit, your third possibility mentioned that the fix is "not
> worth", but there are at least two sub-cases there: (1) maintainer does
> not want to spend *their own time* preparing the fix, but would gladly
> accept pat
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 04:20:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raf Czlonka writes ("Re: New package doesn't fix the problem in the old
> version"):
> > > There is a third possibility which is that the maintainer has made a
> > > judgement that this bug is n
Raf Czlonka writes ("Re: New package doesn't fix the problem in the old
version"):
> Hi Ian,
> > There is a third possibility which is that the maintainer has made a
> > judgement that this bug is not worth going to special effort to fix in
> > the package.
Hi Ian,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
> > > All I was trying to do was to establish was whether you're being
> > > lazy/unhelpful or is there a policy which I've missed as, [...]
I admit that I should have allowed a third possibility here.
> There is a third possibility which is that the
Julien Cristau writes ("Re: New package doesn't fix the problem in the old
version"):
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 18:40:10 +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 06:09:18PM BST, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > > * this is a colossal waste of time.
>
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 18:40:10 +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 06:09:18PM BST, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > my opinion..
> [cut]
> > * unstable and *testing* users are supposed to be able to cope with
> > the one or other glitch, if they don't, they use stable.
>
> I know
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 06:09:18PM BST, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> my opinion..
[cut]
> * unstable and *testing* users are supposed to be able to cope with
> the one or other glitch, if they don't, they use stable.
I know that, thank you. I've been doing that for nearly a decade.
> * this is
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 05:26:03PM BST, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> As I had problems of understanding this first let me recap the
> situation:
>
> git-stuff before 5-1 created a buggy file when getting installed that
> is still causing problems when git-stuff 7-1 is installed.
>
> So it's not so m
the facts..
* #640016 was introduced in version 2-1 on 2011-08-02.
* #640016 was reported on 2011-09-01 and fixed on 2011-09-01 in
version 5-1.
* version 4-1 with the bug migrated on 2011-08-23 to testing,
version 7-1 without the bug migrated on 2011-09-17 to testing.
* testing
* Raf Czlonka [111007 17:17]:
> While the new package indeed does not contain the bug itself when
> installed as a new package on a system which hadn't had it before,
> it does not fix the bug if installed on a system with the older version.
As I had problems of understanding this first let me re
10 matches
Mail list logo
