On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:13:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:32:38PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:41:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > > I've arranged for MPs against git-ubuntu repositories to appear in the
> > > sponsorship queue[1].
>
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:32:38PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:41:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > I've arranged for MPs against git-ubuntu repositories to appear in the
> > sponsorship queue[1].
> I was using the fact that ~ubuntu-sponsors is requested for review in a
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:41:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> I've arranged for MPs against git-ubuntu repositories to appear in the
> sponsorship queue[1].
I was using the fact that ~ubuntu-sponsors is requested for review in a
git-ubuntu MP to make it appear in the sponsorship queue. But if
som
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 10:18:22AM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:41:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > I've arranged for MPs against git-ubuntu repositories to appear in the
> > sponsorship queue[1]. Please could all sponsors handle these MPs just
> > like any other sponso
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:41:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> I've arranged for MPs against git-ubuntu repositories to appear in the
> sponsorship queue[1]. Please could all sponsors handle these MPs just
> like any other sponsorship request?
>
> I appreciate that the git-ubuntu repo isn't the ri
