Hi Mike,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:44:31AM +0000, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> > I've decided *not* to unclaim salt from Mike now but rather ask him to
> > either unclaim it himself or add a note about the current status of the
> > DLA. Mike?
> First of all, I am totally off-schedule with LTS work. I am sorry. This full
> week is dedicated to LTS/ELTS work.
first of all, sorry for forgetting to tell that you dont need to explain
why! (As Antoine explained, unlicking cookies manually has a cost and we
want to avoid these costs if possible, which is the case here.)
second, yay!
> I have looked at salt twice already, both time with insufficient time to
> dive in deeply. My problem was that it is not so easy to identify the
> commits that resolved both open CVEs. I will spend more time on this and add
> at least a comment to dla-needed.txt later today.
cool. (else, next Monday I will unclaim it for sure :-D
> > In future (starting next week), I *will* unclaim packages which have
> > been claimed more than 3 weeks ago and where no note indicates that I
> > should not do that as (for example) the update is being worked on.
> Very good!
Thanks.
--
cheers,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature