From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta11.adelphia.net (mta11.adelphia.net [68.168.78.205]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j4HGq4ZV015797 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:52:04 GMT Received: from [10.0.0.100] (really [69.172.100.254]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.01 201-2131-118-101-20041129) with ESMTP id <20050517165210.EOH13270.mta11.adelphia.net@[10.0.0.100]> for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 12:52:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] UPGRADE complete bugs.gentoo.org From: Jeffrey Forman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200505171242.15421.mcummings@gentoo.org> References: <1116289036.8159.46.camel@buckhead.formanonline.com> <428A0B6E.8050600@gentoo.org> <1116344857.8385.7.camel@buckhead.formanonline.com> <200505171242.15421.mcummings@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:52:09 -0400 Message-Id: <1116348729.8383.18.camel@buckhead.formanonline.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7106357a-30bd-44d5-b44c-fad595d5162d X-Archives-Hash: 92c9ce772a1303c9900d75091cc189a7 Michael, You are very welcome, it was a pleasure to upgrade such a critical piece of Gentoo, even though it required time I could have spent outside in the Florida sun. As for your question about adding in the duplicate status. 'Duplicate' isn't a status, its a resolution state. I point you to http://bugs.gentoo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status for a better explanation. So in a more abstract sense, a Duplicate bug has been 'resolved,' as someone has determined that it is a duplicate bug and pointed the bug to its appropriate original filing. With that said, I put this issue to rest. ;) Yes, it's nitpicky, but I won't impart any bodily harm on you. -Jeffrey On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:42 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: > (fearing the jeff wrath) > > can we get the dup status added back in though? i know, i know, we're being > nitpicky, and not too many folks have stood up and applauded this effort like > they should have (ahem). Just...unsettling to see bugs marked as resolved - > make it sound like i did something rather than find that the same problem had > been reported a few times :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list