On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 10:40:31PM +0200, Ruud de Rooij wrote: > So? This says severity fixed is "for bugs that are fixed but should not yet > be closed", and then lists one possible category of such bugs, namely those > that are fixed in NMU's. The above wording certainly does NOT say that > severity fixed is for NMU's ONLY. Please stop this idiocy. For as long as I have used Debian, (almost 4 years now), bugs have been closed when a package was uploaded to master that fixed them. Bugfixing is a development process. The "unstable" tree of Debian is "under development". Do you see the relationship? My bug list is difficult enough to manage without people like you effectively insisting that bugs should remain open for months after they've been addressed. Leave your own bugs open forever if you want, but do not misrepresent your fantasies about when bugs can be closed as truth to the people on this list. Santiago, please get away from Ruud's computer and return the real Ruud to us unharmed. -- G. Branden Robinson | You don't just decide to break Kubrick's Debian GNU/Linux | code of silence and then get drawn away branden@ecn.purdue.edu | from it to a discussion about cough cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | medicine.
Attachment:
pgpRnbg6rMM_U.pgp
Description: PGP signature