[13:13] <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?
[13:14] <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
[13:15] <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)
[13:16] <mdeslaur> sure, there can be exceptions due to bad timing, but I don't think that was the case here
[13:18] <mdeslaur> (oh and when I said we may publish a day or two earlier, that's _with_ the -proposed changes)