Excerpts from Daniel Pocock's message of 2014-11-14 04:01:10 -0800: > 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 >
Apologies for not realizing thats what you were proposing. I would prefer that we ship the latest upstream, but I'm not going to fight for that. Please NMU if that will address the problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
