On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 11:39 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 14:18:07 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > > > If it is just that 'quiet' supports what it does because that is all it > > has needed to support so far, I'm fine with that. It just means I cannot > > prevent those messages coming to -devel. I still need to process the > > bugs. > > > The only mail -devel needs to get about those bugs now is the > 'Processed' mail from the BTS about them being closed or reassigned. > I don't think anyone will complain about that one mail. > You don't need to process them before they're assigned to the relevant > package. The relevant package is a pseudo-package that is pending so I cannot reassign as yet. Sadly, I do need to process these bugs whilst waiting for the pseudo-package to be created. If I've chosen the wrong pseudo-package whilst waiting, I'll reassign but AFAICT, general is the right one at this time. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part