[Pkg-privacy-maintainers] Bug#833821: marked as done (txtorcon: Should age() use an old new timestamp?)

Mon Sep 5 10:21:07 UTC 2016

Your message dated Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:19:23 +0100
with message-id <20160905101923.5y5hma6cves7j5ba at iain-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
and subject line txtorcon: Should age() use an old new timestamp?
has caused the Debian Bug report #833821,
regarding txtorcon: Should age() use an old new timestamp?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner at bugs.debian.org
immediately.)

-- 
833821: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833821
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner at bugs.debian.org with problems
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Petter Reinholdtsen <pere at hungry.com>
Subject: txtorcon: Should age() use an old new timestamp?
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 01:19:03 +0200
Size: 4337
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-privacy-maintainers/attachments/20160905/c19c8b35/attachment.mht>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Iain R. Learmonth" <irl at debian.org>
Subject: txtorcon: Should age() use an old new timestamp?
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:19:23 +0100
Size: 3327
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-privacy-maintainers/attachments/20160905/c19c8b35/attachment-0001.mht>