Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e")
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 07:42:05 +1000, Herbert Xu <email@example.com> said:
> Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:07:00PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>> OK. Let me ask you this question: what if the maintainer uploads
>>> a new upstream release which happens to fix bug #xxx, and then
>>> sends a message by hand to email@example.com with the
>>> message "This bug is fixed in upstream version x.y.z".
>>> Do you have a problem with this and if so why?
>> Yes. There is no record in the package that a bug report in the
>> Debian BTS was closed in this version. What about other users who
>> experienced the same
> Why should that be in the package? What if you didn't know at the
> time that the bug was fixed in this version?
>> bug? Is it so hard to explain what bug was fixed, and if possible,
>> how it was fixed?
> Remember that I'm talking about closing a bug in the BTS by hand.
> So what was fixed is obvious. If you want to require everyone to
> explain how it was fixed, well I don't think there is anything more
> I can say to you.
Why, thank you. I am so stating: bug closed without
explanation need to be reopened. And since you have nothing to say to
me, I suppose this flame war is winding down?
Trap full -- please empty.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C