Re: Marking TEMP-* issues as resolved

Hi Mike, On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:19:09AM +, Mike Gabriel wrote: > Hi Guido, > > On So 27 Sep 2015 17:03:51 CEST, Guido Günther wrote: > > >Hi, > >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:42:20AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > >>Hi Gudio, > >> > >>On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:17:14AM +0200, Guido G

Re: Marking TEMP-* issues as resolved

Hi Guido, On So 27 Sep 2015 17:03:51 CEST, Guido Günther wrote: Hi, On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:42:20AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: Hi Gudio, On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:17:14AM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > Hi, > > for the glibc update I'm preparing three issues that don't have a CVE >

Re: Marking TEMP-* issues as resolved

Hi, On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:42:20AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Gudio, > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:17:14AM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > Hi, > > > > for the glibc update I'm preparing three issues that don't have a CVE > > assigned yet so they can't be marked as resolved via t

Re: Marking TEMP-* issues as resolved

Hi Gudio, On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:17:14AM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > Hi, > > for the glibc update I'm preparing three issues that don't have a CVE > assigned yet so they can't be marked as resolved via the entry in > data/DLA/list. Is the correct way to tag these by just adding: > > [s

Marking TEMP-* issues as resolved

Hi, for the glibc update I'm preparing three issues that don't have a CVE assigned yet so they can't be marked as resolved via the entry in data/DLA/list. Is the correct way to tag these by just adding: [squeeze] - eglibc 2.11.3-4+deb6u7 to the entries in data/CVE/list after the upload? Che