Hello Salvatore, On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 at 14:08, Salvatore Bonaccorso <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:28:50PM +0000, Samuel Henrique wrote: > > 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? > > Not yet, but I will try to schedule a bit of time in the next weeks > for security-tracker stuff and have a look at this.
Just checking if you would have time to look into this. Thank you, -- Samuel Henrique <samueloph>
