On 2020-12-10, Sandro Tosi wrote: > arent you supposed to announce MBF beforehand?
That is correct. I hadn't thought of that, sorry. It seemed like an obvious / not-discussion-needing thing to go for, seeing as we are two major versions behind. Would you like me to send a follow-up announcement? I wouldn't have an issue with that; I just ask because it seems that post-fact announcement seems to be at odds with the purpose of MBF mails. > why the priority is important? are you targeting pytest 6 for bullseye? If possible, yes, considering that the alternative is shipping 4.6.11 for another two years. However, I'm just contributing to this package; the final decision is up to the maintainer Ondřej. In any case, I've identified and communicated the root cause for the FTBFS for 90% of the packages. Most are trivial, and I think it's easily doable in time for bullseye. Best, Christian
