| rbasak | mdeslaur, leosilva: I just circled round to this ^. Looks like the bug tags were correct at the time of the "trumping" though. Athos changed them afterwards. So I think my original question still stands. My only concern is if there's a process issue on an ongoing basis that we should address - it doesn't matter about that case specifically. | 13:13 |
|---|---|---|
| mdeslaur | rbasak: oh! that changes the data | 13:13 |
| rbasak | Is it in general OK for the security team to routinely bundle changes that the SRU team have "staged" like this? | 13:13 |
| mdeslaur | so yes, leosilva was supposed to look to see if the packages in proposed were ready to be published, and base his updates on top of them | 13:14 |
| rbasak | OK, so no fundamental flaw in our expectation then. I feel relieved :) | 13:14 |
| mdeslaur | if the packages in -proposed have been tested and are ok to publish, we will build on top of them | 13:14 |
| rbasak | Great - thanks! | 13:14 |
| mdeslaur | sometimes we may publish a day or two earlier than the 7-day sru waiting period | 13:14 |
| mdeslaur | leosilva: please do that next time ^ | 13:15 |
| rbasak | Yeah. And also I understand that there will be exceptions - like if you prepared and tested an embarboed update | 13:15 |
| mdeslaur | leosilva: and if you do supersede a package because it's not tested, please mention it in the changelog | 13:15 |
| rbasak | (and that raced an SRU without us knowing) | 13:15 |
| mdeslaur | sure, there can be exceptions due to bad timing, but I don't think that was the case here | 13:16 |
| mdeslaur | (oh and when I said we may publish a day or two earlier, that's _with_ the -proposed changes) | 13:18 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!