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? auric:/org/ftp.debian.org/testing/data/testing/Bugs 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. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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.''
Description: PGP signature