From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mails.dtic.mil (mails.dtic.mil [131.84.1.19]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j4HGg8Vl018350 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:42:08 GMT Received: from sys947.dtic.mil (sys947.dtic.mil [131.84.90.47]) by mails.dtic.mil (8.11.7p1+Sun/Oct04cac) with ESMTP id j4HGgE723171 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 12:42:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Cummings To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] UPGRADE complete bugs.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:42:15 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <1116289036.8159.46.camel@buckhead.formanonline.com> <428A0B6E.8050600@gentoo.org> <1116344857.8385.7.camel@buckhead.formanonline.com> In-Reply-To: <1116344857.8385.7.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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart7655252.umXlxphdCS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200505171242.15421.mcummings@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: b68f5844-20b0-4b81-a08e-56b75f76572b X-Archives-Hash: 0409530fc1bbf4a89c63119fc3e60eb5 --nextPart7655252.umXlxphdCS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline (fearing the jeff wrath) can we get the dup status added back in though? i know, i know, we're being= =20 nitpicky, and not too many folks have stood up and applauded this effort li= ke=20 they should have (ahem). Just...unsettling to see bugs marked as resolved -= =20 make it sound like i did something rather than find that the same problem h= ad=20 been reported a few times :) On Tuesday 17 May 2005 11:47 am, Jeffrey Forman wrote: > Bingo, I found the correlation between those bugs and the previous ones > mentioned by Daniel. They have all been marked as duplicates of other > bugs. Therefore bugzilla does not put a "resolution" in there, only > marking them as status: resolved. > > -Jeffrey > > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 11:19 -0400, Aaron Walker wrote: > > Jeffrey Forman wrote: > > > That seems odd, then again, those are VERY old bugs. Way before my ti= me > > > of looking at bugzilla to upgrade. > > > > Don't think it has anything to do with age. Just marked this one a dup > > this morning. > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D92539 =2D-=20 =2D----o()o--------------------------------------------- Michael Cummings | #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev | on irc.freenode.net=20 =2D----o()o--------------------------------------------- --nextPart7655252.umXlxphdCS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCih7nq1ztTp5/Ti4RAiA2AKCu1C0IJYwLNd+zQW/vzMkRZ812lwCdFoEA V+Sh+hXvAWlsDGWsa4AKXVk= =gbJE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart7655252.umXlxphdCS-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list