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 go
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?
> >>
> >
> >Le
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 go
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 w
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 b
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 pseudo
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 ver
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 f
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 th
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #961814 [golang-google-protobuf] Not ready for using
Added tag(s) pending.
--
961814: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961814
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
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 the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-google-protobuf/-/c
11 matches
Mail list logo
