On Mon, September 13, 2010 14:42, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, September 13, 2010 14:12, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> On 13/09/10 at 13:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >>> On Sun, September 12, 2010 18:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
libgems-ruby has been unblocked but can't migrate until ruby1.9.1 does; which brings us back to... >>> > Then, ruby1.9.1 1.9.2.0-1. >>> >>> Already unblocked by Luk as part of the "security fixes unblock" set, >>> but aged to 20 days. >> >> I don't understand the reason for that. I think that we agree that this >> version is better than the previous one. Why do you prefer to reduce the >> opportunity for testing by not letting it migrate now? > > I assume that was "plural you". :) > > From <[email protected]>: > > /============================= > | > unblock ruby1.9.1/1.9.2.0-1 > | > | unblocked and aged to 20 days due to massive changes > \============================= > > From a quick look at the diff, much of the changes appear to be > auto-generated stuff in enc/trans/ and ext/ripper; are either/both of > those used in the packages? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
