if the new package does not fix the problem there is no reason to mark
it as fixed.
and it seems it doesnt fix the issue
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 18:55 +0000, Savvas Radevic wrote:
> > Marking it as a confirmed with the assumption that a fix to this bug has
> > caused the new behavior.
>
> The new package is a new upstream release - I think it's better to
> leave it as "Fix released" and report a new bug report against the new
> package version (include a link to this bug and mention a possible
> regression?). I'm not a maintainer though!
>
if the new package does not fix the problem there is no reason to mark
it as fixed.
and it seems it doesnt fix the issue
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 18:55 +0000, Savvas Radevic wrote:
> > Marking it as a confirmed with the assumption that a fix to this bug has
> > caused the new behavior.
>
> The new package is a new upstream release - I think it's better to
> leave it as "Fix released" and report a new bug report against the new
> package version (include a link to this bug and mention a possible
> regression?). I'm not a maintainer though!
>