Re: Bugfix errata?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 10:20, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

> 
> Would you call this very popular bug "serious enough"?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76446

without going into details about this bug (bugzilla seems down right
now), one of the factors is the risk of a bugfix; eg glibc and rpm are
obviously high risk for breaking something else while fixing the bug,
which makes it more tricky to do errata for those, and makes the
threshold higher for doing an erratum.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Centos Users]     [Kernel Development]     [Red Hat Install]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat Phoebe Beta]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Fedora Discussion]     [Gimp]     [Stuff]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux