Excerpts from Niels Thykier's message of 2014-11-11 13:05:49 -0800: > On 2014-11-11 19:24, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Daniel Pocock's message of 2014-11-11 00:59:36 -0800: > >> On 11/11/14 06:05, Clint Byrum wrote: > >>> [...] > >>> I think we should unblock 0.9.1. > >> > >> Release team have been a bit reluctant to unblock whole new versions > >> without any justification at all > >> > >> In this case though, maybe they can accept that there was a good reason > >> why it wasn't in testing before the freeze: > >> > >> [...] > > > > The upload only missed being in testing by 3 days, and fixes a number > > of issues. We don't want to ship with an old API. Seems like an easy > > unblock this early in the freeze. > > > > > Honestly, no - the arguments present are really not all that > interesting. In fact, they are a-dime-a-dozen right now. > > In particular, my argument for rejecting pynag/0.9.1 is that the diff is > simply too large to reasonably comprehend.
Who exactly are we affecting negatively by unblocking this package? Because we're going to waste a number of pynag users' time by not unblocking it and witholding the fixes and new features, as well as wasting the syslog-nagios-bridge maintainers' time by requiring them to backport to the old API, so I want to understand the reason we want to do that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
