| 2006-12-19 12:42:59 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2008-03-15 03:49:21 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Ubiquity, Upstart, and the Ubuntu Documentation, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distro-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. Perhaps there should be some way to handle this specially: Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other". |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Ubiquity, Upstart, and the Ubuntu Documentation, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distro-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. For example, bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
Perhaps there should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other". |
|
| 2008-08-26 13:19:43 |
Björn Tillenius |
malone: status |
New |
Triaged |
|
| 2008-08-26 13:19:43 |
Björn Tillenius |
malone: importance |
Undecided |
Medium |
|
| 2008-08-26 13:19:43 |
Björn Tillenius |
malone: statusexplanation |
|
I don't know how we can fix this bug, but we should fix it somehow. |
|
| 2009-02-22 16:05:47 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Ubiquity, Upstart, and the Ubuntu Documentation, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distro-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. For example, bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
Perhaps there should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other". |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Ubiquity, Upstart, and the Ubuntu Documentation, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distro-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software.
For example, bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed. Another example from IRC:
<cumulus007> I'm looking for the translation files of Ubiquity
<cumulus007> I can't find them, where are they located?
<mpt> cumulus007, <https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/+source/ubiquity/+pots/ubiquity/+export>
<cumulus007> mpt: why is the translationn of Ubiquity not integrated into Launchpad, like all other projects?
...
<mpt> cumulus007, can you give the URL of the page where you expected to find it?
...
<cumulus007> https://translations.launchpad.net/ubiquity
Perhaps there should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other". |
|
| 2009-08-25 12:09:17 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Ubiquity, Upstart, and the Ubuntu Documentation, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distro-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software.
For example, bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed. Another example from IRC:
<cumulus007> I'm looking for the translation files of Ubiquity
<cumulus007> I can't find them, where are they located?
<mpt> cumulus007, <https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/+source/ubiquity/+pots/ubiquity/+export>
<cumulus007> mpt: why is the translationn of Ubiquity not integrated into Launchpad, like all other projects?
...
<mpt> cumulus007, can you give the URL of the page where you expected to find it?
...
<cumulus007> https://translations.launchpad.net/ubiquity
Perhaps there should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other". |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and the Ubuntu Software Store, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distro-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software.
For example, bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed. Another example from IRC:
<cumulus007> I'm looking for the translation files of Ubiquity
<cumulus007> I can't find them, where are they located?
<mpt> cumulus007, <https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/+source/ubiquity/+pots/ubiquity/+export>
<cumulus007> mpt: why is the translationn of Ubiquity not integrated into Launchpad, like all other projects?
...
<mpt> cumulus007, can you give the URL of the page where you expected to find it?
...
<cumulus007> https://translations.launchpad.net/ubiquity
Perhaps there should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
|
|
| 2009-08-26 13:01:11 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and the Ubuntu Software Store, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distro-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software.
For example, bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed. Another example from IRC:
<cumulus007> I'm looking for the translation files of Ubiquity
<cumulus007> I can't find them, where are they located?
<mpt> cumulus007, <https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/+source/ubiquity/+pots/ubiquity/+export>
<cumulus007> mpt: why is the translationn of Ubiquity not integrated into Launchpad, like all other projects?
...
<mpt> cumulus007, can you give the URL of the page where you expected to find it?
...
<cumulus007> https://translations.launchpad.net/ubiquity
Perhaps there should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
|
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and the Ubuntu Software Store, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software.
For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Store maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-store>).
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time. |
|
| 2010-04-08 23:39:29 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
summary |
Handle a distribution being its own upstream for a package |
Poor handling of a distribution being its own upstream for a package |
|
| 2010-04-08 23:39:29 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and the Ubuntu Software Store, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost caused by there being two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software.
For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Store maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-store>).
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time. |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and the Ubuntu Software Store, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Center maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-center>).
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time. |
|
| 2010-09-13 14:13:21 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and the Ubuntu Software Store, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Center maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-center>).
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time. |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and the Ubuntu Software Store, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Center maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-center>).
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time.
|
|
| 2011-01-24 09:37:04 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and the Ubuntu Software Store, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Center maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-center>).
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time.
|
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and Ubuntu Software Center, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Center maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-center>).
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
Bug 3152 and bug 138545 are suggestions for the converse case, where an upstream project wants to see bugs reported about packages of the project as well.
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time.
|
|
| 2011-03-07 14:36:36 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and Ubuntu Software Center, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Center maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-center>).
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
Bug 3152 and bug 138545 are suggestions for the converse case, where an upstream project wants to see bugs reported about packages of the project as well.
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time.
|
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and Ubuntu Software Center, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Center maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-center>).
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
* The Unify project <https://launchpad.net/unify> exists partly as a workaround for this bug as it affects Unity.
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
Bug 3152 and bug 138545 are suggestions for the converse case, where an upstream project wants to see bugs reported about packages of the project as well.
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time. |
|
| 2011-06-28 14:02:52 |
Brian Murray |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Brian Murray |
| 2011-09-21 23:01:42 |
Robert Collins |
launchpad: importance |
Medium |
Low |
|
| 2013-11-27 13:55:16 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution *is* the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and Ubuntu Software Center, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The Ubuntu Software Center maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package (as shown in <https://launchpad.net/software-center>).
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
* The Unify project <https://launchpad.net/unify> exists partly as a workaround for this bug as it affects Unity.
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
Bug 3152 and bug 138545 are suggestions for the converse case, where an upstream project wants to see bugs reported about packages of the project as well.
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so the fixes for that bug should be designed at the same time. |
In some cases, a particular distribution is the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and Ubuntu Software Center, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The previous Ubuntu Software Center maintainer preferred bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package. The current maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the project.
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
* The Unify project <https://launchpad.net/unify> exists partly as a workaround for this bug as it affects Unity.
* In November 2013, Ubuntu Touch standardized on reporting bugs on the package rather than the project. <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-November/037821.html>
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
Bug 3152 and bug 138545 are suggestions for the converse case, where an upstream project wants to see bugs reported about packages of the project as well.
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so it would save time to design the fix for that bug at the same time. |
|
| 2013-11-27 15:20:04 |
Anca Emanuel |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Anca Emanuel |
| 2013-11-27 20:00:17 |
Robert Ancell |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Robert Ancell |
| 2014-07-03 07:33:37 |
Matthew Paul Thomas |
description |
In some cases, a particular distribution is the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, and Ubuntu Software Center, all of which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The previous Ubuntu Software Center maintainer preferred bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package. The current maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the project.
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
* The Unify project <https://launchpad.net/unify> exists partly as a workaround for this bug as it affects Unity.
* In November 2013, Ubuntu Touch standardized on reporting bugs on the package rather than the project. <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-November/037821.html>
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
Bug 3152 and bug 138545 are suggestions for the converse case, where an upstream project wants to see bugs reported about packages of the project as well.
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so it would save time to design the fix for that bug at the same time. |
In some cases, a particular distribution is the upstream for some software. Examples include Notify OSD, Ubiquity, Upstart, the Ubuntu Documentation, Ubuntu Software Center, and most Ubuntu Touch components, which are designed for Ubuntu first and foremost.
In these cases, the benefit of keeping generic bugs and distribution-specific bugs separate is less than the cost of having two possible places to report bugs about exactly the same software. But even when this is obvious, which of the two is the best place is not. For example:
* Bug 200910 describes how Ubuntu uploads to the ubuntu-docs package should, but don't, automatically mark ubuntu-docs project bug reports as fixed.
* The Notify OSD maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (as shown for example in bug 415015).
* The previous Ubuntu Software Center maintainer preferred bugs to be reported on the Ubuntu package. The current maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the project.
* The Upstart maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project (which contributed to confusion in bug 557177).
* The Ubuntu SSO client maintainer prefers bugs to be reported on the upstream project.
* The Unify project <https://launchpad.net/unify> exists partly as a workaround for this bug as it affects Unity.
* In November 2013, Ubuntu Touch standardized on reporting bugs on the package rather than the project. <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-November/037821.html>
There should be some way to handle this specially. Colin Watson said "I'd love to have bugs (optionally) transparently gatewayed from one to the other".
Bug 3152 and bug 138545 are suggestions for the converse case, where an upstream project wants to see bugs reported about packages of the project as well.
The Translations equivalent is bug 28524, so it would save time to design the fix for that bug at the same time. |
|
| 2015-06-15 13:33:01 |
Jim Hodapp |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Jim Hodapp |
