[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Processed: round and round we go

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:46:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x?  I thought for sure you
> weren't.]

I'm not, but it looks like mutt's "group reply" isn't clever enough to
add me to the Mail-Followup-To field without debian-x being explicitly
listed as a mailing list.

> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
> > woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special cased".
> Oh ah.  Is that marking visible in any publicly-readable file?


The relevant line is "xutils 1" -- ie, xutils in testing has 1 RC
bug. Those numbers are rough and inaccurate, and shouldn't be relied
upon too heavily.

> > You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
> > uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
> > valid candidate.
> I had the impression -- perhaps mistaken -- that "valid candidate"
> wouldn't have shown up anyway.

Yup, it was mistaken. "Maintainer: Branden Robinson", "14 days old (needed
10 days), "Depends: foo bar" and "baz (source, i386) is (less) buggy!"
are all examples of lines that'll show up in update_excuses without
preventing the package from being considered as a valid candidate.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpzoqXknVYC3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: