Hi,
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> In any event, I am happy to work towards reinitializing the Salsa issues
> experiment to start again in April and then see how it goes from there.
>
> What do you think?
It's a pity that nobody else responded... I'm no longer involved in
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 04:47:57PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have discussed with Santiago the idea of whether we need to somewhat
> expand the scope of dla-needed.txt.
>
> In essence, we need to continue tracking packages as in-work in some
> cases even after a DLA
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 06:48:58PM -0300, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
>
> While I see all the advantages of moving to Salsa issues, I value to
> have the most similar method and workflow than the security team for
> the LTS work. And that especially if we want to explicitly state when
> working
Hi,
On 17/03/2024 06:54, Sean Whitton wrote:
On Thu 14 Mar 2024 at 04:47pm -04, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
- it is important update the notes on packages in dla-needed.txt to
indicate what work has been done and what remains
I think that we should be also reviewing old notes and deleting
Hello,
On Thu 14 Mar 2024 at 04:47pm -04, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> - it is important update the notes on packages in dla-needed.txt to
> indicate what work has been done and what remains
I think that we should be also reviewing old notes and deleting those
that don't matter anymore. I've
Hi,
On 14/03/2024 21:47, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
- FD should be confirming that package removals from dla-needed.txt are
valid (i.e., that the package does not require any work towards an
upload to (old)stable)
Phrased that way, I don't really like the idea of FD checking on his
El 15/03/24 a las 08:31, Roberto C. Sánchez escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:06:10AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Hello Roberto,
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > Santiago and I are in agreement that at the moment the best available
> > > option is to use
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:06:10AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello Roberto,
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Santiago and I are in agreement that at the moment the best available
> > option is to use dla-needed.txt even for tracking work that needs to
> > happen after
Hello Roberto,
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Santiago and I are in agreement that at the moment the best available
> option is to use dla-needed.txt even for tracking work that needs to
> happen after the DLA is released, specifically working toward an upload
> to (old)stable.
Hello everyone,
I have discussed with Santiago the idea of whether we need to somewhat
expand the scope of dla-needed.txt.
In essence, we need to continue tracking packages as in-work in some
cases even after a DLA is released because we might be working with
secteam, (O)SRM, and/or the
10 matches
Mail list logo
