I think all of these other than 722 (random number generator), have
now been dealt with.
I'm going hunting in the outer realms of bugzilla for a bit - I may be
some time :-/
Nigel.
On 14 Oct 2009, at 16:08, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
>
> On 14 Oct 2009, at 01:38, Phil Pennock wrote:
>
>> Like these?
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=765
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=871
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=887
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643
>> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722 (probably needs some fixup)
>>
>
> I've worked through the first few. Will get to the others when I
> have time - assuming no one gets there first. Unfortunately its
> slow work as I touch the codebase so rarely now. [which is why I am
> a lousy maintainer for this stuff - I don't use it and don't code it
> any more]
>
> We really ought to just get you a commit bit.
>
> Nigel.
>
> --
> [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
> [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
>
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
