Your message dated Wed, 3 Jun 2015 08:15:10 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#787205: Keep 220 in unstable for a while
has caused the Debian Bug report #787205,
regarding Keep 220 in unstable for a while
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
787205: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=787205
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: systemd
Version: 220-1
Severity: serious
Argh, I screwed up my sbuild command this morning, and
systemd (220-1) experimental; urgency=medium
actually went to unstable:
https://tracker.debian.org/news/687479
Now, we planned to land the experimental version in unstable around
next week anyway, so it's not too bad. I didn't plan to do that on a
Friday either; but at that point a revert is worse than just going
through with it.
There is nothing which is known to me to be a regression or broken.
But let's keep 220 in unstable for a few days longer than just 5 days.
Martin
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Martin Pitt [2015-05-29 18:51 +0200]:
> But let's keep 220 in unstable for a few days longer than just 5 days.
There are enough RC bugs (#787542, #787256, #787553) plus the mipsel
FTBFS to hold 220 in unstable, so we don't need this extra report any
more.
Martin
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
