[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?
From: |
pmaydell |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send? |
Date: |
Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:16:55 +0000 |
Joel Reicher wrote:
>The bug reports (with patches) that I've done over the past couple of
>months are certainly there, but nobody's picking them up. I'm pretty sure
>it's not a Savannah problem. There are reports (with patches) from other
>people that go back a year or two.
I did go through the elderly bug reports prior to the 1.2 release
(speaking of which, aren't we going to try for a 1.2.1 now?) -- but
I didn't do anything with (a) new features or (b) patches to areas of
the system I couldn't test (SASL, platforms I don't have, etc).
(The BTS is rather unwieldy, incidentally: I repeat my plea for somebody
with admin access to define some more useful Item Groups and Categories.
Also the division between 'bugs' and 'patches' seems a bit weird and we
have a lot of bugs with patches still filed under 'bugs'.)
I don't currently expect to have a lot of time to spend on nmh, though.
-- PMM
- [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?, Joel Reicher, 2006/01/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?, Jon Steinhart, 2006/01/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?, Joel Reicher, 2006/01/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?, Jon Steinhart, 2006/01/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?, Joel Reicher, 2006/01/31
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?, Jon Steinhart, 2006/01/31
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?, Joel Reicher, 2006/01/31
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?, Jon Steinhart, 2006/01/31
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?,
pmaydell <=