Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:08:16 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 205584] www/qupzilla-qt5: Crashes after opening new tab Message-ID: <bug-205584-13-kJQEhHuH6A@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-205584-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-205584-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D205584 Vladimir Krstulja <vlad-fbsd@acheronmedia.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |maintainer-feedback+ --- Comment #12 from Vladimir Krstulja <vlad-fbsd@acheronmedia.com> --- (In reply to matthew from comment #11) Your feedback was requested on the subject, it was set with maintainer-feedback? with your email address. To address such a feedback, y= ou set it to maintainer-feedback+, or else it would appear you never did which would lead to maintainer timeout. Just removing the feedback request (?) is inaccurate, so I'm setting it bac= k to +. The feedback requested was for the entire issue at hand. Whenever you reply, like you did explaining that it was probably fixed upstream, and you think that's the appropriate answer / feedback given to the bug report, you flag = it with maintainer-feedback+ (if it was requested with ?). In addition, you can set maintainer-approval+ to patches, which is related = but not the same thing. As there's no patch here, the approval was never reques= ted. I hope this explains the difference. I'm just going to ask the reporter, Arto, to confirm if this was indeed resolved in the meantime? If so, we can close this. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-205584-13-kJQEhHuH6A>