groff before CVS: release 1.071.07

Reconstructed from 1.06 and a diff. The date is from James Clark's
1.07 announcement.

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/BUG-REPORT b/BUG-REPORT
index c5f60a5a0..c87c66fe5 100644
--- a/BUG-REPORT
+++ b/BUG-REPORT
@@ -24,11 +24,12 @@ OS:
 COMPILER:
 [The compiler you are used to compile groff. For example, `g++ 1.40.3']
 
-INPUT FILES: [Include all the files necessary to reproduce the problem
-that are not part of the standard groff distribution.  This includes
-font description files, DESC files and macro files (with the exception
-of the -ms and -mm macros: I have them).  Send them as as a shell
-archive or as a uuencoded, compressed tar file.
+INPUT FILES:
+[Include all the files necessary to reproduce the problem that are not
+part of the standard groff distribution.  This includes font
+description files, DESC files and macro files (with the exception of
+the -ms and -mm macros: I have them).  Send them as as a shell archive
+or as a uuencoded, compressed tar file.
 
 It's easier for me if you can provide an example that doesn't depend
 on any macro package, but obviously if you're reporting a problem with
@@ -39,7 +40,9 @@ definite example.]
 
 COMMAND LINE:
 [The command line that I should run in order to observe the bug. For
-example, `gtroff -Tps bug.tr']
+example, `gtroff -Tps bug.tr'.  If the commmand line uses -ms or -mm,
+say whether these refer to the groff versions or the Unix versions of
+the macros.]
 
 DESCRIPTION OF INCORRECT BEHAVIOUR:
 [What goes wrong when that command line is run?  For example, `gtroff