Comment 13 for bug 513432

Andrew Bennetts (spiv) wrote :

It's essentially the same bug. The faulty line of code was different in lp:bzr/2.2 vs. lp:bzr/2.1 due to a refactoring (and so apparently caused the fix in 2.1 to be lost when 2.1 was merged into 2.2), but the actual fault was the same, and the nature of the fix was the same. So probably we could/should mark this bug as a dupe of 636930, although ideally we wouldn't want to lose the bug metadata on this bug about when it was fixed in e.g. 2.1... :/