On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:54:39PM +0530, Rahul wrote: > Good to know that you got helpful responses. Were the ones that got a > angry response critical ones? Actually only one is overtly angry. The other is merely simmering. The angry one is bug #144592, and the report is about odd behavior in nautilus. Not a solid bug report, but it would have been good for it to have gotten a quick triage reply. The second (bug #141587) is about a coding error in evolution-data-server, which probably also should have gotten the quick reply "good catch; this should be fixed upstream". [re: rhl9 and before] > I would say close them all and let people reopen it if any of it still > applies to a currently maintained version of Fedora and/REHL . RHEL bugs > are better deal with through the formal support channels though. I think I'd do the NEEDINFO thing and maybe close in 60 days. Although maybe it'd be nice if someone @redhat.com did the actual closing? Do you have any particular wording I should use about the formal support channels for RHEL? -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
