emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#20368: closed (25.0.50; [debbugs] Search by 'submi


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#20368: closed (25.0.50; [debbugs] Search by 'submitter' doesn't work when the search phrase is present)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:52:01 +0000

Your message dated Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:51:09 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#20368: 25.0.50; [debbugs] Search by 'submitter' 
doesn't work when the search phrase is present
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #20368,
regarding 25.0.50; [debbugs] Search by 'submitter' doesn't work when the search 
phrase is present
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
20368: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20368
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 25.0.50; [debbugs] Search by 'submitter' doesn't work when the search phrase is present Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 01:16:38 +0300
In debbugs 0.7.

1. M-x debbugs-gnu-search

2. Type 'url-retrieve-synchronously', press RET.

3. Type 'submitter', RET, 'address@hidden', RET.

4. See an empty result list.

If I input an empty string in step 2, or omit the 'submitter' parameter,
I see several bugs returned, in both cases including 19729 and 19860.



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#20368: 25.0.50; [debbugs] Search by 'submitter' doesn't work when the search phrase is present Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:51:09 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)
Michael Albinus <address@hidden> writes:

> Well, it took a while before I could work on this. Using debbugs 0.10,
> it is fixed:
>
> 1. M-x debbugs-gnu-search
>
> 2. Type 'url-retrieve-synchronously', press RET.
>
> 3. Type 'author', RET, 'address@hidden', RET.
>
> --> This is the fix. "submitter" was the wrong attribute, it isn't
> offered anymore.
>
> 4. See bugs 24117, 20368, 20207, 19860, 19729, 12893.
>
> Could you, please, cross-check?

I'm marking the bug as closed. Fell free to reopen if it doesn't work
for you.

Best regards, Michael.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]