Re: GNOMEVER2.1 and GNOMEVER2.3 keywords



On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 20:39, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Can somebody with the appropriate permissions fix the descriptions for
> the GNOMEVER2.1 and GNOMEVER2.3 keywords?
> 
> We should have a big warning on GNOMEVER2.1 to say that it should not be
> added to any new bugs (it can't be removed since it will still be in use
> on other bugs). Also, GNOMEVER2.3 needs its description amended to point
> out that it is currently in use (and not a "for the future" keyword).

Looks like this 'malcolm commsecure com au' guy already has 'edit
keywords' powers.  :)
I've gone ahead and done these two edits, though the GNOMEVER2.1 text
could probably use a review.  TTYL,
	Greg

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



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