Hello Salvatore, On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 at 20:02, Samuel Henrique <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 at 19:43, Salvatore Bonaccorso <[email protected]> wrote: > > As mentioned in an earlier message: What I would love to see is to > > actually have a substate which makes the situation clear, and still > > beeing technically correct. I was envisioning something which would be > > a substate like we have for the substate of no-dsa (ignored, > > postponed). > > This sounds like the solution proposal A2, quoting it: > > ## A2) Add a new mutually exclusive state to the set: > "not-affected-build-artifacts" > > Would this be aligned to what you're looking for?
Could you check if the suggestion above addresses your concern? Cheers, -- Samuel Henrique <samueloph>
