Re: Haskell binnmus is there a problem?
- To: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>
- Cc: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>, "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, debian-release <debian-release@lists.debian.org>, Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org>, peter green <plugwash@p10link.net>, debian-haskell@lists.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu27@gmail.com>, pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org, debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Haskell binnmus is there a problem?
- From: Ilias Tsitsimpis <iliastsi@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 17:17:18 +0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20190830141718.6jztozzqcyw2yt6h@iliastsi.net>
- Mail-followup-to: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>, "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, debian-release <debian-release@lists.debian.org>, Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org>, peter green <plugwash@p10link.net>, debian-haskell@lists.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu27@gmail.com>, pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org, debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 2a98bc1ad0086014b2631e5770ab19f7@debian.org>
- References: <1d762d7f-44f7-1fa3-adb0-9b957d5bd445@p10link.net> <3EC7FE44-E1B8-4A55-86C1-B15666C67E30@debian.org> <20190821081404.GH5586@mapreri.org> <20190827164028.57jj5tfgnricscdm@iliastsi.net> <cf11267384a0a7a74f188ff0933ef612e9587808.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk> <3106bd7f-640a-e0dc-96ee-834ba7a18aee@philkern.de> <815a2169-fcc3-c9ca-8a76-e2d86df23210@debian.org> <[🔎] 1fc5f28947b86296317881130b655a80@debian.org> <[🔎] b3937e10-0bcb-15df-0f45-f7e66bedea6c@debian.org> <[🔎] 2a98bc1ad0086014b2631e5770ab19f7@debian.org>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:08PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> So that together with the other mail of not making it automatic: Would we
> just want to have an endpoint you can call as a member of an approved
> team(?) that ingests a list of work items, processes it and archives it?
> Assuming that Release Team has no block in place? Can we require a manual
> action by a team member rather than it being run continuously? So that we
> could then track down who initiated it?
I agree on requiring manual action by a team member, for the reasons
stated on my other email. I think the above proposal covers our needs.
Please let me know how I can help implementing/testing this.
Cheers,
--
Ilias
Reply to: