[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Advice for DLA needed entry

Hi Adrian

Den tis 5 jan. 2021 13:45Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> skrev:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 12:03:05AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi Adrian

Hi Ola,

> If we keep it in dla-needed we will constantly have people like me who
> think that something should be done when it is not claimed.
> Should we write your name on the claim (because you do in practice have it
> claimed, but the problem here is that it will be a long claim, but that is
> not an issue if you keep adding notes) or should we write a fake claim like
> [semi-claimed pending buster backport] as claim name?

   NOTE: 20201129: buster-pu in #975932, will backport when in buster (bunk)

This is my note from November, and this is a fake claim.

Oh. Is that a common practice? I thought claims was done by adding a name on the line with the package name.

Before you've added your notes a month later this was the last note,
and if you did not look at the bug before doing anything else that's
something you should learn a lesson from.

I did but it was still not clear to me whether the open cves were going to be addressed by the update and whether the update was for the postponed or the ones without. I did not realize that the planned update were for the postponed until you added the note after my email.

I think the confusion appeared because new CVEs had appeared.

Usually people ask when a note is unclear.

Yes and hence I started this mail thread.

To avoid duplicate work, usually people ask before working on a package
someone else seems to have worked on before.

Yes but asking and waiting for answer also take time. 

Anyway things are more clear now.

/ Ola

> Cheers
> // Ola


Reply to: