Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-08 Thread Alberto Bertogli
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:30:21PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:17 PM Alberto Bertogli wrote: On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:12:24PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: >On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:59 PM Alberto Bertogli > wrote: >> But those issues are not made worse by allowing

Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-08 Thread Shengjing Zhu
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:17 PM Alberto Bertogli wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:12:24PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:59 PM Alberto Bertogli > > wrote: > >> But those issues are not made worse by allowing golang-google-protobuf > >> to go in, right? > >> > > >

Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-08 Thread Alberto Bertogli
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:12:24PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:59 PM Alberto Bertogli wrote: But those issues are not made worse by allowing golang-google-protobuf to go in, right? Let golang-google-protobuf go in is one thing, it's not difficult. However without

Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-07 Thread Shengjing Zhu
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:12 PM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:59 PM Alberto Bertogli > wrote: > > But those issues are not made worse by allowing golang-google-protobuf > > to go in, right? > > > > Let golang-google-protobuf go in is one thing, it's not difficult. > However

Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-07 Thread Shengjing Zhu
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:59 PM Alberto Bertogli wrote: > But those issues are not made worse by allowing golang-google-protobuf > to go in, right? > Let golang-google-protobuf go in is one thing, it's not difficult. However without golang-goprotobuf 1.4.x it's not useful currently. But it will

Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-07 Thread Alberto Bertogli
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 04:43:43PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:51 PM Anthony Fok wrote: Hi Shengjing, On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:42 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > Hi Anthony, Thanks for writing to me! Sorry for the late reply. I was going to re-open this with the

Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-07 Thread Shengjing Zhu
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:51 PM Anthony Fok wrote: > > Hi Shengjing, > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:42 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > > > Hi Anthony, > > Thanks for writing to me! Sorry for the late reply. > I was going to re-open this with the pseudo header "Control: reopen > -1" to keep this new

Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-06 Thread Anthony Fok
Hi Shengjing, On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:42 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > Hi Anthony, Thanks for writing to me! Sorry for the late reply. I was going to re-open this with the pseudo header "Control: reopen -1" to keep this new version out of testing (buster), but then I decided to study the issue

Bug#961814: marked as pending in golang-google-protobuf

2021-01-05 Thread Shengjing Zhu
Hi Anthony, On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 11:27 PM Anthony Fok wrote: > > Control: tag -1 pending > > Hello, > > Bug #961814 in golang-google-protobuf reported by you has been fixed in the > Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit > message below and you can check the diff of