Re: Correct fate for emacs20 bugs?

To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, jerome@debian.org
Subject: Re: Correct fate for emacs20 bugs?
From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:54:36 -0800
Message-id: <[🔎] 871wng4h0z.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20061204000259.GA6297@doctormoo.dyndns.org> (Nathanael Nerode's message of "Sun, 3 Dec 2006 19:02:59 -0500")
References: <[🔎] 20061204000259.GA6297@doctormoo.dyndns.org>

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm> writes:

> So I'm going through the old bugs list.  There are 37 bugs against
> emacs20.  emacs20 is only in oldstable-security at this point.  What
> is the correct fate for these bugs?

Good question.  If the bugs still exist in emacs21, then they should
be reassigned (or cloned).  Otherwise, emacs20 is a very, very low
priority.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

Reply to:

References:
- Correct fate for emacs20 bugs?
  - From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>

Prev by Date: Correct fate for emacs20 bugs?
Next by Date: Re: Bonsai: Candidate for removal from the archive?
Previous by thread: Correct fate for emacs20 bugs?
Next by thread: Re: BTS: Why no "invalid" or "notabug" tag?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread