Re: [PATCH resend] Correct unclosed start-tag introduced in 45cbe74

To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] Correct unclosed start-tag introduced in 45cbe74
From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:39:04 -0600
Message-id: <[🔎] 20110301233904.GB9490@elie>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20110301231812.GB27537@yellowpig>
References: <20110116085449.GA28726@merveille.plessy.net> <[🔎] 20110301081841.GA27436@elie> <[🔎] 20110301231812.GB27537@yellowpig>

Bill Allombert wrote:

> Done as 11ced50c61b4b242baa34428de74d93d64e846cd.

Thanks, Bill.  That was fast. :)

Reply to:

References:
- [PATCH resend] Correct unclosed start-tag introduced in 45cbe74
  - From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Re: [PATCH resend] Correct unclosed start-tag introduced in 45cbe74
  - From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH resend] Correct unclosed start-tag introduced in 45cbe74
Next by Date: Bug#599944: [PATCH] Add a reminder of Pre-Depends policy to §7.2 "Binary Dependencies"
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH resend] Correct unclosed start-tag introduced in 45cbe74
Next by thread: Bug#548867: Proposed patch to update Debian Developer's Duties chapter
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread