On 14/11/14 12:33, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 22:05:49 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> On 2014-11-11 19:24, Clint Byrum wrote: >>> Excerpts from Daniel Pocock's message of 2014-11-11 00:59:36 -0800: >>>> On 11/11/14 06:05, Clint Byrum wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> I think we should unblock 0.9.1. >>>> Release team have been a bit reluctant to unblock whole new versions >>>> without any justification at all >>>> >>>> In this case though, maybe they can accept that there was a good reason >>>> why it wasn't in testing before the freeze: >>>> >>>> [...] >>> The upload only missed being in testing by 3 days, and fixes a number >>> of issues. We don't want to ship with an old API. Seems like an easy >>> unblock this early in the freeze. >>> >> >> Honestly, no - the arguments present are really not all that >> interesting. In fact, they are a-dime-a-dozen right now. >> >> In particular, my argument for rejecting pynag/0.9.1 is that the diff is >> simply too large to reasonably comprehend. >> > I've added rm hints for both packages.
Hi Julien, I had offered to NMU the fix against pynag 0.8.9 and was just waiting for Clint to respond to that Please do not remove the packages Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
